Several Lords took the Oath.

Afghanistan: Humanitarian Aid

Baroness Whitaker: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the Tokyo conference, what efforts they have made to get humanitarian aid to inaccessible regions of Afghanistan.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, thanks to the early and effective actions of the international humanitarian community, a catastrophe has been averted in Afghanistan. However, the humanitarian situation remains fragile and pockets of unmet need remain where vulnerable people cannot be reached due to poor weather or insecurity. Humanitarian agencies, supported by the United Kingdom, are continuing to do their best to deliver life-saving assistance to those in need, including the United Nations World Food Programme, which has deployed helicopters for rapid assessment and delivery of emergency aid to remote areas, and specialist experts and equipment to keep routes open.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that realistic and comprehensive Answer. Does she agree that the ultimate aim must be to render humanitarian aid unnecessary by fostering long-term development? If she does, will she say, following the publication of the DfID consultative document on eliminating hunger, how her department will be furthering Afghanistan's needs for long-term development?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend Lady Whitaker that we need to work to make humanitarian aid unnecessary. However, in the short term, we shall continue our humanitarian efforts while at the same time working for the long-term reconstruction and development of Afghanistan. My noble friend will be aware that at the recent Tokyo conference there were pledges both for next year and for a five-year reconstruction effort. The Department for International Development has set aside a further £20 million for this financial year. This support follows on from the £40 million of emergency humanitarian relief we have already given. We have pledged £200 million over the next five years.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, even in accessible areas, levels of malnutrition among Afghan children are shockingly high? Can she give an assurance that the levels of emergency food aid will not be allowed to drop off as international tension moves on to the next big crisis?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord that we continue to monitor the humanitarian situation extremely carefully. As I said in my opening Answer, helicopters are now being used to access the more remote and difficult areas. Of course, the weather remains a problem because it is winter. There are also some security problems, with which we are trying to deal. There is a huge problem with the numbers of internally displaced people in Afghanistan, as well as problems with refugees in neighbouring countries. We are well aware of these challenges and we are working in partnership with the whole international community to try to bring an end to these problems.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, can the Minister say what is being done to encourage the Afghans to grow food to feed their own populations rather than to grow opium poppies to feed the addiction of the western world?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, as the noble Countess knows, our overarching development commitment is to deal with poverty reduction. As 85 per cent of Afghanistan's population is dependent on agriculture, and given the continuing food shortage, the international recovery efforts need to focus on raising productivity in agricultural areas and, indeed, on creating employment opportunities. The noble Countess may be aware that, in ex-poppy-growing areas, a poppy cultivation ban was imposed by the Taliban which has created some difficulties for those communities.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the Minister say whether there is a continuing problem because there have been press reports that, when food parcels were being dropped, children were being told not to touch them as they contained poisons or dangerous substances? Has that problem been overcome? Are people now willing to accept the humanitarian food aid in particular?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I believe the noble Baroness is referring to a problem which occurred very early on when airlifts were being used to drop some supplies. We are now trying to ensure that we get supplies in directly, either on the ground or through the use of helicopters. Donkeys have also been used to get supplies into some of the more remote areas. The difficulty identified by the noble Baroness is no longer such a problem.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, as regards the resources committed by this country and internationally, will the Minister indicate the balance between those for humanitarian needs and those for long-term reconstruction and development?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that at the Tokyo conference we pledged £200 million over five years for long-term reconstruction. With regard to the immediate needs, since 11th September—I hope that I get the figures right—we have given some £40 million; and we have given a further £20 million since then. I shall confirm the figures to the noble Lord in writing.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, will the Minister comment on her department's commitment to ensure that women's interests in Afghanistan are fully represented— including through the Afghan Interim Authority—and that there may be a ministry for women?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that it was agreed at the Tokyo conference that women's rights should be fully mainstreamed and honoured through all the programmes in the reconstruction process. I can confirm that, of the 21 people appointed to put together the Loya Jirgah, three are women.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that aid is still arriving in Afghanistan by train from the north, granted that rail is the best way of bringing in large quantities of aid? Are there any plans to re-establish the rail link across the Pakistani border?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not able to answer the second point about the rail link across the Pakistani border. I shall investigate the matter and write to the right reverend Prelate. We are using every avenue open to us to get humanitarian aid into Afghanistan.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, how many helicopters are available for the distribution of food?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I am not aware of the exact number. If I can confirm it, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.

Political Parties: Donations

Lord Goodhart: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will consider legislating to impose a cap on the size of donations to political parties and to provide further state funding for political parties.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have no current plans for a cap in the size of donations to political parties or to establish a new system for state funding. This is in line with the recommendations of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired then by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. The Electoral Commission has indicated previously its intention to consider the argument for a cap on political donations and state funding for political parties before the next general election. We shall want to look very carefully at any recommendations it makes. We would welcome a debate on the funding of political parties.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Government accept that, if public confidence in the political process is to be restored, it will be essential to put a cap on the size of donations to political parties from any single source? Will the Government also accept that the corollary of that is that there will be a need for increased public funding for political parties, either by direct grants or by means of tax relief?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: No, my Lords, I do not accept that. The Neill committee examined the issue and concluded neither that there should be a cap nor that there should be public funding of political parties. As to a cap, the Neill committee concluded that individuals have the freedom to contribute to political parties. At the same time, the committee made it clear that there should be disclosure of substantial donations. So far as concerns the public funding of political parties, the view has been taken that it would be wrong for the state to finance political parties. There are other matters which are more important in terms of financial priorities. So I do not accept the noble Lord's premise. As I said in my original Answer, it would be useful to have a debate on the issue.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, given the Minister's last observation, will he and his colleagues be very careful indeed before they are induced by the seductive words of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to enter the morass of feeding political parties with public money—at least until political parties become much nicer and wiser than they presently are?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the "morass" as regards public funding for political parties was a point examined by the Neil committee. The committee's response to that as a solution was a decisive "No". As I said, we should have a debate on the matter, but we are not presently persuaded that it would be a sensible way in which to spend public money.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, when will we ever learn? Yet again, we have been through a very difficult period in terms of publicity for the Labour Party. The same has happened to other political parties over recent decades. Why do we not now consult the public and find out what they believe and not presume in advance that our views as to what they believe are correct? We may well be wrong—as indeed may have been the noble Lord, Lord Neill.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I underline the point: let us have a debate on the issue. Let us hear what people say about it. I accepted at the outset that we should welcome such a debate. However, the Neill committee examined the matter and concluded that there should not be a cap and nor should there be public funding. Changes were introduced that have made a significant difference, including the publication of any significant level of funding by private individuals. As my noble friend suggests, let us have a debate on the matter.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the Neill committee reported some time ago. Does the Minister recognise that since then a number of cases have aroused great public concern about the funding of political parties? In particular, in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said, should not the Government recognise that the loophole for those domiciled in this country who fail to pay our taxes but who make donations to political parties is precisely the sort of issue that concerns the public deeply and undermines faith in our political system?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I recognise the public concern on that. The Electoral Commission is to look at caps and public funding and a Select Committee in another place will be looking at the funding of political parties generally. I have set out the Government's present position, but I have made it clear that we welcome a debate on these issues. Some time has gone by since the Neill committee reported and there have been various incidents. However, currently we are not persuaded of the need for a change.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, have we not heard a new version of Goodhart's law today—the nai ve hope that good money will drive out bad?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is a matter for the noble Lord to take up with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who unquestionably has a very good heart.

Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, in the great debate that the noble and learned Lord wishes to have, I hope that he will take an early decision to advise the Prime Minister and the Labour Party to hand back Mr Mittal's £125,000 donation, given his active lobbying against the United Kingdom's steel industry.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, no doubt the noble Lord took advice from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, before he asked that question.

Commonwealth Education

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will make proposals for enhanced Commonwealth education co-operation at the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government will not put forward any new proposals at Coolum. However, we shall reiterate the importance of education for poverty reduction and development within the Commonwealth and for developing core Commonwealth values of democracy, tolerance, respect and understanding.

Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there will be a general warm welcome for the Government's proposal to set up a fund in connection with the Queen's jubilee year to speed up the war against poverty in primary education for children throughout the Commonwealth? If that is to succeed, a balanced education strategy is required. At the CHOGM in Brisbane, will the Government take up the recommendations made by the Commonwealth education Ministers at their recent meeting in Canada and seek their speedy implementation with a view to making the next meeting of Commonwealth education Ministers—which I believe will take place in Scotland—an outstanding success, for which the Government will get some credit?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot comment on where the next meeting of Commonwealth education Ministers will take place, although I understand that an announcement will be made shortly. I agree with the noble Lord. Education, particularly primary education, is one of the key elements of our strategy for reducing poverty. We are committed to the millennium development goal. We have committed more than £600 million since 1997 to help to achieve that target. The Halifax statement set out a broad vision of education. Commonwealth education Ministers mandated the Commonwealth Secretariat to monitor and report on the implementation of the recommendations coming out of that meeting.

Viscount Waverley: My Lords, education is key and Britain has much to offer. I do not wish, with regret, to be too political about the issue, but does the Minister accept we are disadvantaging ourselves by inhibiting foreign students coming to be educated in this country through the raising of fees?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, through our support for the Commonwealth Scholarships and Fellowships Plan, for example, DfID and the FCO have given substantial amounts of money to help Commonwealth scholars to study in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the Commonwealth. Supporting education in the Commonwealth remains a key part of our strategy.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, is the Minister aware that CDC capital partners are abandoning their investments in some very deprived poor countries? Does she accept that while Her Majesty's Government allow that to happen, the development of education in some of the Commonwealth's most vulnerable countries will suffer?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. The CDC legislation, which passed through both Houses of Parliament, has some clear strategy attached to it. The noble Lord will remember that the CDC is required to ensure that a certain proportion of its investment remains in the poorest countries, in particular in sub-Saharan Africa. We continue to recognise the importance of education in tackling poverty. Achieving the millennium development goal of getting children into universal primary education by 2015 remains a key part of our strategy. Through our work with the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, we shall also continue to support Commonwealth scholars.

Lord Quirk: My Lords, do the Government agree that one of the remaining problems in education not only in the Commonwealth but in the third world generally is the relatively low take-up of primary education among girls as opposed to that among young boys?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I entirely agree. Noble Lords will be aware of the goal to achieve gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. We are working very hard to achieve that, but it is difficult, particularly in situations in which boys' education is given much higher priority than girls' education.

Football Bans: Advice to Magistrates

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What recent advice has been given to magistrates to encourage the imposition of banning orders on those convicted of criminal offences in connection with football matches.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, detailed guidance on football-related legislation has been issued to the courts since the Football Disorder Act 2000 came into effect in August 2000. The Lord Chancellor's Department issued advice in August 2000 and supplementary guidance in July 2001. Comprehensive Home Office guidance on football-related legislation was updated and issued to the courts in August 2000.

Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, those clubs and police forces that are doing their best to protect their games and grounds against hooligans will sadly be disappointed with that response. Does the Minister know that last season magistrates refused two out of every three applications for banning orders on convicted hooligans? The scoreline reads: Everton 0, hooligans 9; Middlesbrough 0, hooligans 18; Stockport County 0, hooligans 14; and, top of the league, Walsall 0, hooligans 35. What can the Minister do to encourage magistrates to make better use of banning orders to protect our national game and prevent English hooligans getting to World Cup games this summer?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I assure my noble friend that much has been done. He outlines a most depressing scoreline, but I should remind the House of some more encouraging figures. As of today, 951 individuals are subject to banning orders. Of those, 873 can be prevented from travelling to matches overseas. That is a huge increase on the 100 individuals who could be prevented from attending the Euro 2000 championships. One need only look at the recent Holland versus England game to see the difference that the measures have made. On that occasion, there were only 12 English arrests. When England last played in Holland in 1993, there were well over 1,000 arrests, together with great disorder. The nature of the offences has also changed. There was a little drunkenness. Two gentlemen were caught relieving themselves at a convenient point. Only one person was arrested as a result of violence. That is a significant improvement and our football fans should rightly be congratulated on their change of heart.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, there is not the slightest doubt that everyone will welcome the successful way in which the Football Disorder Act worked at the recent England versus Holland match. Everyone involved deserves some congratulations. However, does the Minister agree that magistrates' courts are the first line of defence as soon as an order is applied for, and that it is therefore essential that the courts have a clear idea of their proper function and administer their decisions in a consistent and rigorous manner? Sadly, such an approach is still necessary. Is the Minister satisfied that magistrates' courts are adequately briefed—I shall not say instructed—on how to proceed?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have given a great deal of guidance; I dare say that all noble Lords will have seen the magnificent publication Guidance on Football-Related Legislation, produced by the Home Office. To encourage magistrates even further, as I said in my initial Answer, the Lord Chancellor's Department has issued further guidance to magistrates. We understand the concerns about inconsistency in imposing orders across the country. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is certainly concerned about the issue. Last October, in a speech to the Magistrates' Association, he stressed that, when the legislative criteria are satisfied, there is no discretion and the court must make an order. That has been clearly underlined by my noble and learned friend. Magistrates have the benefit of a legally trained magistrates' court clerk to assist them in making such determinations, and there has been a steady increase in the number of orders made. We therefore hope that the message is getting through and that we shall see greater consistency.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the behaviour of the spectators at Cardiff yesterday and the result of that match prove beyond doubt that those supporting the two clubs set an example to the rest of the country? There was no difficulty at all with the police.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to acknowledge that. I also understand that it was Blackburn's most successful game since probably 1926. Many congratulations to them—although we hope that noble Lords who are true Spurs supporters are not too gloomy about the outcome.

Lord Ouseley: My Lords, does the Minister believe that, notwithstanding the role of the courts in dealing with bad behaviour by football fans, the behaviour of professional footballers has an impact on the behaviour of football fans at football matches? If that is the case, is there not an inherent double-standard in the way in which the football authorities behave in selecting players who have criminal convictions to represent this country at an international level? Do the Government intend to bring their influence to bear on the football authorities to prevent highly paid professional footballers with criminal convictions representing this country?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a matter for the Football Association to decide which footballers are chosen. The noble Lord, however, has raised issues that the association must properly take into consideration. Although the Government cannot influence that decision, we can say that the banning orders apply equally to all individuals, be they players or supporters. The universality of the provision is helpful.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, has my noble friend studied the remarks of Assistant Chief Constable Ron Hogg, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who was interviewed on BBC Radio 5 on 31st January? He said that current legislation is very effective and works very well when used, but that between 300 and 400 football fans who have been convicted of offences of violence that should have resulted in a banning order are still free to travel this summer to the World Cup in Japan and Korea. In view of the fact that the number of England fans travelling under the auspices of the official travel club is likely to be only 4,000—one-tenth the number who went to France—does the Minister accept that 400 fans who are travelling under their own steam but who have criminal convictions could do great damage to the name of English football in the World Cup competition?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I certainly understand the noble Lord's fear. I can reassure him that the authorities both in the United Kingdom and in Japan are working extremely hard together to ensure that those who might wish to disrupt the World Cup are not able to do so. I also know from my noble friend Lady Amos that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has put very valuable information about the subject on its website. There is a very joined-up approach to ensure that those who wish to behave badly have a very limited opportunity to do so.

Lord McNally: My Lords, further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ouseley, does the Minister agree that while football should receive support from the police and from magistrates, the solution to its many problems lies inside football itself—not only in leadership by players and directors but by continuing to improve ground safety and CCTV coverage, refusing to admit known hooligans to the grounds, and implementing a mass of policies that together will make football grounds safer places to be? Will the Minister therefore reject entirely the siren voice of Kate Hoey and others who have called for a return to terraces at football grounds, which would be an invitation to further hooliganism?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a number of points, but I think that I should properly deal with only a couple of them. The first point was on leadership. I certainly agree that leadership is immensely important. I also agree that the effort being made to improve grounds is very helpful in enhancing the levels of intelligence available to police and other agencies and targeting those who have created huge problems. As for the comments of my honourable friend Kate Hoey, I shall allow her to speak for herself.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that whereas some of the figures that she has cited today fill us with some hope and confidence, we must never be complacent? Must we not also work to try to ensure that the behaviour of football crowds at association matches is as good as that of fans at Rugby League matches—in which I have a certain interest?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, yes.

Business

Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Rooker will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Yarl's Wood fire.

Civil Defence (Grant) Bill

Read a third time, and passed.

Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning (Amendment) Bill

Read a third time.
	Clause 1 [Extension of amnesty period]:

Lord Glentoran: moved the amendment:
	Page 1, line 7, leave out "2007" and insert "2005"

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I have placed this amendment before your Lordships twice already during our consideration of the Bill. I think that the argument between my party and the Government is about two things. The first and clearest basis for our disagreement relates to the message. We believe that the most important action, which could make the biggest difference to the people of Northern Ireland and to the overall ambience and atmosphere and progress in Northern Ireland, would be serious acts of decommissioning by all paramilitaries.
	I am extremely unhappy with the way that the Bill has been worded. It does not send a message from the Government about their serious intent to tackle the paramilitaries and force them to disarm in one form or another. They have given concessions again and again. We have been over the arguments and I do not wish to spend more time on them. Yet we have not had any decommissioning from the loyalist paramilitaries who are culpable of the majority of the murders committed over the past year in Northern Ireland.
	We had an act of decommissioning which came in a rush after 11th September. We do not know its scale. Some press reports may be interpreted as saying it was considerable; according to others, and reading between the lines of what General de Chastelain is reported as saying, it may have been minimal. We do not know. But in relation to the effect on the peace process and on politics in Northern Ireland, decommissioning may almost not have happened. We need a serious determination to get to grips with the decommissioning problem and with the arms held by paramilitaries throughout Northern Ireland.
	The date in the amendment, which falls within the remit of this Government, is a reasonable date. It is not rushed; it does not stipulate the end of the year as the amendment in the other place did. It is a reasoned amendment. It clearly falls within the responsibility of this Government, before another election, to send the message through the acceptance of this amendment that we are determined, within the life of this Parliament, to ensure that we see some decommissioning from the paramilitaries. The way that the Bill reads at the moment leads the paramilitaries to say that it is another five years and they need not bother about it. But I can assure the Minister and the House that every year that this Bill comes up for review, my party will take the same stance that we are taking now unless we see some serious acts of decommissioning in between. I beg to move.

Lord Fitt: My Lords, I rise for only a few moments to once again express my opposition to the lengthening of the period allowed for paramilitaries to disarm, as stated in the Bill.
	I spent last week in Belfast. I spoke to many people on both sides of the community, both loyalist and republican. Many expressed amazement and concern that the Government seem to be making yet another concession to people who have been guilty of the most atrocious murders over the past few years. They are concerned about that. But they are even more concerned—I made this point on the last occasion I spoke in the House—that linked to this decommissioning, which will allow paramilitary murderers to hold on to their weapons, the Government will be introducing within a few weeks an amnesty Bill. The people of Northern Ireland fear that the two are directly linked.
	It is believed that more than 100 terrorists are on the run. They now have new names for them. In Northern Ireland they had ODCs, for "ordinary decent criminals"—those who were not involved in paramilitary activities. Now they have OTRs—"on-the-runs". But in the minds of the general public in Northern Ireland there is a direct linkage between our approach to decommissioning which would permit terrorists to hold on to their weapons for five years and the fact that, in a few weeks' time, terrorists who have been guilty of the most heinous offences and who are now living in the Republic of Ireland will be granted an amnesty to return to Northern Ireland without any possibility of ever appearing before the courts.
	Only one political party asked for those concessions; that is, Sinn Fein. The loyalists, the SDLP, the Official Unionists and the Democratic Unionists—all the major political parties in Northern Ireland—did not ask for them. So the concession on decommissioning—I am in no position to warn anybody—will produce serious opposition in this Parliament if, in the future, it appears that an amnesty is to be granted. That opposition may not only be in Parliament; it may also be on the streets of Northern Ireland if the Government go ahead with an amnesty Bill.
	I express my opposition to the Bill because I am convinced that it is a further concession to people who have been guilty of the most heinous crimes in the history of Ireland.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I, too, support enthusiastically the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, for the reasons I gave on a previous occasion. Those reasons are even more relevant now than they were 10 days ago because the passage of time has made this amendment, and a different approach to the entire Bill, more urgent and more relevant.
	I know that outside observers have great difficulty in understanding the proceedings of your Lordships' House. They fail to appreciate the importance of separate stages of Bills, particularly those Bills which have completed their progress through another place—I am not certain whether the word "progress" is appropriate; "mad dash through another place" may be more appropriate.
	Before Christmas the security situation in Northern Ireland was comparatively stable. P O'Neill, the IRA scribe, signed various bits of paper. They were thought to be of great significance but do not seem to have delivered very much. Elected colleagues in high places—I say "elected"—made certain clucking sounds which have been seized upon by the news industry as "remarkable progress". Within minutes of an atrocity, public servants assure us that it is the work of dissidents, the implication being that the murder of a citizen is therefore of little importance. But now the security forces, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is aware, are on full alert in Northern Ireland, almost too late given the destruction of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the likely ineffectiveness of the replacement body.
	While one is acutely conscious these days of Army overstretch, there is an urgent need for a return to an anti-terrorist role for those formations of the Army currently stationed in Northern Ireland, which are not insignificant. Whatever the fate of this now rather irrelevant Bill, nothing must distract security chiefs from their duty to protect citizens in the highly dangerous weeks ahead. Of course, additional costs will have to be met from the promised increase in taxation intended to prevent people dying, now to prevent people being murdered.
	The Chancellor of the Exchequer may have noticed only about a week ago the Irish Prime Minister giving what appeared to be a solo interview in Downing Street in which he, Mr Ahern, described his search for a Commonwealth judge of standing to investigate various allegations into the murders of several prominent citizens over many years. One assumes, although one cannot prove it, that Mr Ahern was speaking with the approval of Mr Blair when he announced the trawl for a judge, so it would seem to be a joint appointment with, presumably, each government paying half the fees and half the costs, including the costs of the fairly large staff that will have to be appointed to serve the judge, and jointly bearing the costs thereafter of several Saville-type public inquiries which inevitably will follow. Whatever the findings of the judge may be, the clamour will not in any way be diminished. Such joint arrangements will hopefully ease the demands on the taxation increases already dedicated to the National Health Service.
	I have a suggestion to aid the Irish Republic's taxpayers, as one must be fair and there must be a degree of reciprocity. Your Lordships will have heard of the shooting of a British citizen in a Dublin police station only a week ago. It is alleged that the deceased shot himself but the only witnesses were Irish policemen who were in the station at that time. In earlier years their word would have been accepted, but sadly throughout the entire British Isles it is now common practice to reject the word of any policeman. I am not asking for a public inquiry but it would be desirable to clear the names of those Irish policemen on duty in that station at that time by inviting, or appointing, the police ombudswoman for Northern Ireland to conduct a thorough investigation and produce an impartial report. Only in that way can the Gardai officers stationed in that police station be spared the kind of slanderous attacks which were made on the Royal Ulster Constabulary following the Omagh bombing by terrorists based in another jurisdiction. Subsequently, those allegations were gleefully seized upon by certain organs of the news industry. The names of those policemen in the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Omagh have not been cleared of that monstrous smear.
	No additional costs should be incurred if my suggestion is adopted of permitting the Northern Ireland police ombudswoman to function south of the Border in Dublin as her salary, expenses and staff costs are already paid by the British Treasury. Therefore, we are being generous and fair-minded as regards our southern neighbours. The suggestion would be a perfect example of the kind of "jointry" which is now being advocated and practised within the forces of Her Majesty the Queen.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I rise briefly—

Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, will allow me briefly to intervene. I remind noble Lords that this is Third Reading and speakers should speak to the amendment. I say with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Molyneaux, that he strayed slightly from the precise subject of the amendment.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I do not think that I am likely to stray far from the point. I rise to offer my support to the amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Glentoran and, indeed, to express a good deal of sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. I support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it because I and a number of others are beginning to have doubts as to how serious the Government's commitment to disarmament is. I do not think that there can be many people who have not harboured doubts about the commitment of the IRA and some of the other terrorist organisations to disarmament. It appears to be zero.
	We are told of the wonderful act of decommissioning which took place towards the close of last year but, most extraordinarily, although we are supposed to take account of it and to take it into our minds as we assess the politics of Northern Ireland, we are denied any knowledge of the size of it. It is a difficult matter to assess. We do not know whether it was a matter of one 1914 revolver or 50 Kalashnikovs. It is difficult to make any assessment of its significance without any awareness of its size.
	I say that I begin to harbour doubts as to the seriousness of the Government over disarmament, for two reasons. One is that on every occasion when the Government have had a weapon in their hands by which they could have placed pressure upon the terrorists they have failed to use that weapon. The dates in the Bill seem to impose little pressure once again. I think that everyone in Northern Ireland is now beginning to suspect that at some time in the not too distant future there will be not just an amnesty Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, suggests, but perhaps a Bill to provide for a referendum on the future of Northern Ireland.
	As we all know, it is the settled policy of Her Majesty's Government to favour the union of Ireland by consent. Therefore, the objective of the union of Ireland is shared by Sinn Fein/IRA and Her Majesty's Government; it is the method over which there is difference. We recollect the powerful argument which was put during the referendum on the Belfast agreement; namely, that were the people of Northern Ireland not to vote yes, hostilities would break out again and the IRA would be on the loose. Whenever anyone wants to take any action in Northern Ireland which does not suit Sinn Fein, we are told that that action would damage the peace process. That, as we all know, is code for, "It would get the IRA killing and bombing across the sectarian divide". As we know, not too much fuss is made about murders which do not cross the sectarian divide. In the immortal words of one former Secretary of State, they are merely housekeeping.
	But if at some time in future we were to have a referendum on the question of the Border, provided the IRA is then as it is today—that is, still fully active, fully armed and ready to resume the war—the following powerful argument would be put, "Oh, dear people of Northern Ireland, whatever misgivings you have, do vote yes or the peace process will be disrupted". We know what that threat means. That is why I support the amendment and why, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I have the gravest doubts about the Bill.

Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I have supported the Government's policy on Northern Ireland for a number of years, but I must confess that I have done so with considerable uneasiness. I propose to vote for the Government today and I shall explain why later, if I can. It strikes me that the Government's policy is unbalanced. It was quite correct in the beginning to make concessions to the nationalist community as there was leeway to make up. However, like many others, I believe that leeway has now been made up and that the balance of concessions has gone too far in that direction.
	I do not intend to speak at great length. I merely say in shorthand that the views which I express are very similar to those expressed in earlier debates in this House by my noble friend Lord Fitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth. I believe that they are right and I consider that the Government are mistaken in that the concessions have gone too far.
	The result has been in part productive. My noble friend Lord Dubs explained that in a debate just before the Recess. I was not wholly convinced by his arguments, although many of them were sound. The effect has been to polarise politics in Northern Ireland between the extremes in a way which is undesirable and which is likely to show up in whatever elections take place in the near future. I am no prophet and I may be wrong, but I shall be surprised if I am.
	There has also been a curious effect which I find a little disturbing. Whenever there is a concession, the nationalist side—not the nationalist side as a whole but the Sinn Fein part of it—seems to be laughing behind its hand. A week or so ago I saw a photograph in the press of the new offices in this building where Mr Adams has been established. An Irish Republic flag appeared in the photograph—the kind of thing one sees in the Oval Office in the United States. It is not usual in this building for parliamentarians to fly flags in their offices. To me, it had the look of an old-fashioned two-finger salute, albeit a highly coloured one. It was not meant to be a conciliatory activity or a gesture of gratitude towards the Government.
	I shall vote for the Government today, with uneasiness and misgivings, for two reasons. First, I do not believe that the two-year difference is really significant. It may be useful but it is not significant. However, the second and more important reason is that I promised my noble friend Lady Farrington that I would do so. She is the best Whip in the business and I accede to her entreaties. But, in giving in as graciously as I could, I told her that this would be the last time that I would do so. I am giving the Government the benefit of the doubt but I do not intend to be quite so generous in giving them the benefit of the doubt in the future.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, from these Benches I make it clear that we are in favour of decommissioning today; if not today, tomorrow; and, if not tomorrow, the day after. A great deal is said in these debates about linkages, and I shall add to that myself. For me, the major linkage is between this Bill and a crunch day. The two dates, 2005 and 2007, are the occasions when we hope not to debate this issue again. I hope that we do not ever debate it again, and I believe it is important that we do not create another crunch day which would increase the chances of our having to do so. There have been far too many crunch days in Northern Ireland. If the one thing that we can do today is eliminate the earliest of the two crunch days, I believe that we should do so. Therefore, we support the Bill as it stands.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, while I have sympathy with the endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, to bring a degree of credibility to a flawed piece of legislation, the stark truth is that this piece of legislation is so flawed, based on misjudgments over a period of more than four years, that I doubt whether it can be improved. I believe that it heralds a great deal of pain and suffering for people in Northern Ireland.
	The reality is that the legislation signifies a gradual government surrender to Sinn Fein/IRA. Although I do not want to repeat what I said in a previous debate, in the Belfast agreement in 1998 that organisation was accorded the opportunity to give up violence and accept democracy. It cannot have democracy with all the trappings of violence still in place. Not only was it given that opportunity but the people of Northern Ireland had their decision endorsed by the people of the Irish Republic in terms of what should happen. It has not happened because rather too speedily the Government have abdicated their responsibility to those who for 30 years, despite all the violence that they have suffered, have been prepared to continue to put their faith in the democratic process.
	Many of us believed that the Belfast agreement could and should be a definitive moment in history. When we accepted what was on the table, we sought to make it work. But I regret to say that from the Prime Minister down there has been a tinkering around the edges—an embroidering of what the people assented to—so that there has been no significant pressure from this Government or the Irish Government to get on with disarming.
	Therefore, again and again it has been left to David Trimble, the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, to take steps which have endangered the process of trying to bring normality to Northern Ireland. As the leader of that process, he has been forced to endanger it because he has not received single-minded support either from our own Government or from the Government of the Irish Republic.
	I conclude by taking up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howie. He said that this was the last chance that he would give the Government—this was unsaid but understood—to behave honourably in terms of those in Northern Ireland who adhere to and support the democratic process. However, I say to the noble Lord that we are all aware that other things will happen in Northern Ireland which will not be debated in this House. We understand that a conspiracy—that may be too strong a word—a debate is taking place not in public but in private to consider the whole structure of the Special Branch of the Police Service of Northern Ireland.
	I assure the noble Baroness that I shall not stray from the topic, but each time we give government a chance, those of us who do so find that we are let down. We find that a series of incidents occur which are allowed to go by default. Herein lies my difficulty. I shall support the amendment because at least it brings the period within the ambit of this Government, which I believe is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. Beyond that, I believe that the Bill is an abdication of responsibility.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He has spelt out the position correctly. How will the people of Northern Ireland see this measure? They will see it as another appeasement policy by the Government following the Belfast agreement.
	I remind the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, that the Belfast agreement, in which the Government participated, confirmed that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that that cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is totally different from suggesting that the Government want to bring about a united Ireland. The Government have confirmed that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, must take account of the fact that the settled policy of the Labour Party, and its objective, is a united Ireland by consent. That is why in Northern Ireland the Labour Party does not accept members but tells those who want to join that they should join the Labour Party's sister party, the SDLP.

Lord Kilclooney: My Lords, I shall not become involved in a debate of that kind. I know what the Government's position is and not that of the Labour Party. In relation to the Belfast agreement, the Government's position is that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and that that cannot be changed without the principle of consent. We must be positive on that issue.
	Turning to the amendment, increasingly the people of Northern Ireland are becoming uneasy about the Belfast agreement. It is not the opponents of the agreement within Northern Ireland who are destroying it, but successive policies of Her Majesty's Government since that agreement was decided upon. Conveying the message that decommissioning does not matter and that it can go on for years causes great problems. Decommissioning should take place before the elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in the summer of next year. We have only one year left to save the Belfast agreement.
	If we continue to say that decommissioning really is not necessary, that the royal coat of arms does not need to be in the Crown Courts and that we can have an amnesty Bill, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, the future of the Belfast agreement will be undermined. Be warned, if matters go any further, as the noble Lord said, the two extremes—Sinn Fein and the DUP—will win at the next election, and that will be the end of the Belfast agreement.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, noble Lords have said much of what I intended to say. However, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, I point out that debates of this kind provide the only opportunity to discuss policy on Northern Ireland. In my view, whenever we have such an opportunity, we have a duty to make relevant points. I strongly support the amendment and in this instance the relevant point is the perception of the people. As noble Lords have explained, that is the problem.
	The problem is not the Belfast agreement, but what is not happening—the perception of the people, the threat to the Special Branch, and the failure of decommissioning. Incidentally, there are also the ridiculous and terrible matters like the lengths taken to recover the bodies of those whom the IRA murdered. After an enormous fanfare, only three bodies were found. Yet we were pressurised and made to feel that if we did not support that, the peace process would collapse. Every time we resist anything in the name of the ordinary people of Northern Ireland we are told that we are spoiling the peace process.
	On Thursday 14th February in the other place there was at long last a debate on the relocation of families to this country because of paramilitary intimidation. The honourable Member, Mr Harry Barnes, suggested that the two Sinn Fein members who are now in this Palace may conceivably have attended that debate to listen to the consequences of the actions of the paramilitaries. They did not. The answers received from the Minister were wholly inadequate.
	Of the money that has been devoted to aid peace and to help the victims, £250,000 has gone to the Warrington peace centre, apparently largely to appease and amend the trauma of the people of Warrington. What about the people of Northern Ireland?
	I return to the point that this is one more signal that the Government are sending to the people of Northern Ireland that they do not believe that it matters much whether decommissioning happens next year, or never. I support the amendment.

Baroness Blood: My Lords, I had not intended to speak but in 1998, when the Belfast agreement was signed, like many others, I went into the community to sell it. Two selling points were the early release of prisoners and decommissioning. We all know which way matters went. I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, but with a query. In Northern Ireland people will be saying, "Who cares whether it is 2005, 2007 or never?" The area in which I live is awash with loyalist and republican weapons and nobody really cares.
	My noble friend Lord Kilclooney is right. This sends back a message to the people of Northern Ireland that the Belfast agreement is finished. We know that the Belfast agreement is the only way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. Yet this House and the other place send back the message that these dates can continue to be put back and that it does not matter. The loyalists say that they will not hand in their weapons because they use them for defence and we do not know whether the republicans are handing in any weapons or not. So the situation continues.
	I often come to the House to listen to debates on Northern Ireland and I wonder what message is being sent back to the ordinary folk in Northern Ireland. I have lived in north and west Belfast and all noble Lords have images of those areas. The people I almost coerced to support the referendum are now saying to me that next year the situation will be totally different and we shall have real problems. While I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and while I understand the thinking behind it, in Northern Ireland the people will say, "Who cares?"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. I do not agree with all of them, but I recognise the deep seriousness with which everyone has spoken. On a number of occasions it has been said that this Bill, amended as proposed, or unamended as I offer, conveys that decommissioning does not matter at all. I beg to differ most profoundly. Nothing could be further from the truth. The direct opposite obtains.
	Because the Government believe that decommissioning is necessary and essential, we have a scheme that is rightly described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, as possessory immunity. Although he and I do not agree on our conclusions, we agree on our analysis of what this Bill means. It does not represent, as one noble Lord said, a permit to hold on to weapons. Quite the opposite. If anyone in Northern Ireland is found in possession of prohibited materials, weapons or explosives or other devices they are presently liable to be prosecuted. If signals are to matter at all, it is worth bearing in mind that under the Bill possessory immunity will pertain only if weapons are part of a scheme of decommissioning.
	I could understand a purist's approach that, "We never agreed with the Act originally, and we do not agree with any continuation now". But that is not what the majority of your Lordships have said. The original Act allowed for a period of up to five years during which those who wished to decommission weapons could do so. That is an extremely important, indeed critical, potential turning point in Northern Ireland.
	I suggest that the important question for your Lordships is: do we want to have the opportunity of this possessory immunity further continued? If your Lordships do not—I repeat that I understand the purist position—then there is no opportunity to give any legal immunity to anyone in possession of these weapons, or explosives or any other similar devices.
	The Bill, if it is passed, extends the present term for a further maximum of five years. I stress those words. The first Bill provided for up to a full five-year term; this is a time-limited Bill up to a five-year term. But the one point that has hardly been touched on, except by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, is that this issue is subject to annual review by Parliament—every 12 months—on the affirmative order basis.
	A number of noble Lords have said—I know it is frequently said on these occasions—that signals are important. It is not for me to dissent from that. But reality and availability of possessory immunity within the law are also important. It is right that Parliament should consider this matter as often as every 12 months on the affirmative order basis.
	Not all noble Lords have been present during earlier stages of the Bill. I must disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about opportunities. We have had them on the Bill at Second Reading, on Report and in Committee. They have been fully taken by some of your Lordships. Not all of your Lordships were here on those occasions. I know that the exigencies of other duties sometimes make that impossible, but I put the question, which is not entirely rhetorical: if these criminals come to a change of mind or heart or spirit, should there be the opportunity available to them within the law to express that in practice? That is not a rhetorical question; it is a legitimate one to be put.
	Therefore, what I propose to your Lordships—I recognise the seriousness of this occasion—is that we extend the Bill for a period of five years, which is the usual time limit of a Bill. It has its own inbuilt structures of parliamentary control, which again I respectfully commend in principle.
	Perhaps I may return to the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. He said that on every occasion when the issue comes up for review my party will adopt the same stance. He and I are at one in recognising that his party, other parties and people of no party will have that annual occasion.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal for that intervention. This has been a fascinating debate. Much of what has been said today has been said before. It is—and I hope that it will be taken as such—a serious warning and a demonstration to the Government from many people who live in Northern Ireland, as to where this deadline really is. This deadline was made very clear by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, in different references—one to the elections in May 2003 and one to the reception that debates in your Lordships' House receive in the part of Belfast where the noble Baroness lives.
	I started by saying that this amendment is about messages. It is about messages. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Privy Seal, representing the Government, and I disagree on the way that those messages will be received if the Bill remains as it is. I believe that this is one of the last few chances that we have to start to reverse the thinking of the supporters of the agreement who will vote in May 2003. This must be the start of a change of process, which is seen and understood by the people of Northern Ireland and led by Her Majesty's Government, to help those supporters vote for the parties who support the agreement.
	I want to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 102; Not-Contents, 160.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Bill passed.

Yarl's Wood

Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I wish to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the fire at Yarl's Wood Removal Centre.
	"Before setting out what happened on the night of Thursday 14th February, I want to make my position absolutely clear. I am not prepared to let government policy be determined by those intent on creating disorder and destruction. Having removed asylum seekers from prison, we now find that our reward is the burning down of a substantial part of the facility. This is deplorable.
	"The new nationality, immigration and asylum policy which I set out on 7th February remains unchanged. In particular, I intend to press ahead with expanding the number of places in secure removal centres to 4,000. There will be no uncertainty and no misunderstanding; we will implement our comprehensive policy as set out to the House.
	"Let me set out the facts as we know them. The unrest, involving a number of detainees, started on the evening of 14th February. At that stage, the sequence of events is not entirely clear. However, it has been established that during the disturbance control of the centre was wrested from staff, allowing detainees to gain access to keys providing access to restricted areas, including a property store. At the same time, damage was being caused inside the centre, including to the operation of the closed circuit television. The detention contractors, Group 4, faced with substantial disorder, called for assistance from public services.
	"A number of detainees moved outside the accommodation blocks, and a smaller number of these breached the perimeter security.
	"The earliest police units to arrive worked to restore perimeter security around the site, and a number of detainees were apprehended at that stage. Further detainees were taken into custody later in the night in the Bedford area. Our latest estimate is that 22 remain at large.
	"An initial fire in the reception area was extinguished, but fires were started in a separate block and in more than one location. The fire service was unable to tackle these blazes because detainees prevented them from gaining access to the building. By the time order had been restored on the compound, the fire had taken significant hold in one part of the centre, and it proved impossible to save those buildings.
	"I am pleased to tell the House that, despite speculation to the contrary, we do not believe that there were any fatalities. I have authorised continuing investigation until we are certain of this. I can tell the House that dogs have been sent into the site this afternoon.
	"Mr Speaker, in the appalling circumstances of that evening, the men and women of the Bedfordshire police and fire services acquitted themselves with dedication and courage. So too did members of the Prison Service and the Yarl's Wood operators. I know that the whole House will want to express its gratitude to them.
	"Since the events of 14th February, I have taken a number of immediate steps to strengthen security and protection within the service. First, I have sought advice from the Chief Inspector of Fire Services on safety at Yarl's Wood and other removal centres. Subject to immediate remedial action, the undamaged sections at Yarl's Wood have been declared safe. I therefore intend to continue use of them. Similar advice has also been given in respect of Harmondsworth. Other removal centres are also being assessed.
	"Secondly, as a further precaution, detainees with a history of violent or criminal behaviour and those considered a danger to safety have been transferred to prison. Detailed contingency plans have been put in place should further disorder arise, and I have given direct instructions to improve both staffing and security.
	"Mr Speaker, Bedfordshire police, fire and rescue services have begun investigations into the events of that night. These will take some weeks to complete. Group 4 has also instituted an internal investigation. I have also initiated a Home Office overarching investigation to inquire into the causes of the events and to draw together the other reports, which will include recommendations on design and future fire and security measures. This will, of course, be conducted in a manner that does not impede any criminal investigation. The investigation will be headed by Stephen Moore, a senior and experienced Prison Service official, and I would encourage honourable Members to make any observations directly to the inquiry.
	"I know that the House would want me to deal with the issue of the absence of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood. The decision not to fit sprinklers was informed by advice from a number of different expert sources. Sprinklers have not been used in other similar establishments, due to operational and practical issues associated with managing sprinkler systems in such an environment. Nevertheless, a review was already ongoing into their use.
	"Mr Speaker, the review and recent events have led me to believe that increased precautionary measures are necessary. I have therefore taken a preliminary decision to install sprinklers in all new removal centres and will take the necessary steps to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood, as well as Harmondsworth and other facilities.
	"It is now clear that there is a small number of people who will take any step to prevent their removal from this country. We therefore have no option but to toughen the regime, as well as instructing the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to further speed up removal of those in the centres to their country of origin. It would be unthinkable to allow violent and disruptive behaviour to put the safety of staff and other detainees or the public at risk. In addition, I will also be giving consideration to the criteria for allocating particular individuals to specific removal centres. That will entail looking at different levels of security appropriate to the individuals being held.
	"While I take my obligations under the 1951 convention very seriously, many claimants fail to meet the standards required. Those with no right to remain must be removed, if our overall policy is to stand any chance of success. I therefore conclude by reiterating my determination to provide a coherent and seamless process in which rapid removal—and therefore the prevention of absconding—must play an essential part.
	"The lessons of 14th February will be learned, but the message must also be clear. No one will be permitted to engage in the kind of behaviour that put lives at risk and destroyed first class facilities, built at public expense and created as an alternative to prison regimes. That is the message I intend to give this afternoon, and I know that the House will back me in this stance".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement of the Home Secretary.

Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place about the fire at Yarl's Wood. It is a tragic matter. Yarl's Wood is a key part of the Government's new process for handling asylum seekers or, more precisely, for handling asylum seekers who have failed to make it into the country as genuine asylum-seeking refugees.
	My questions fall into two categories. The first relates to the structure of the building. It was a new building. One must ask whether sufficient consideration was given to the problems that might arise in its use. Its form of construction—a timber construction—was not likely to be adequate to contain people who had nothing to lose. Was serious consideration given to security on the site from that point of view?
	The Minister touched on the question of fire precautions. Any timber building is easy to set on fire. The Minister said that the decision not to fit sprinklers was informed by advice from several different expert sources. Bearing in mind the nature of the potential inmates, we must ask what expert sources gave such advice. In the Statement, the Secretary of State says:
	"I have therefore taken a preliminary decision to install sprinklers in all new removal centres and will take the necessary steps to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood".
	On what advice was that decision taken? I can see that it was taken in the light of experience, but I wonder whether the advice was the same in both cases and whether, in the first place, the decision was, so to speak, a ministerial decision, without expert advice.
	My understanding of the construction of such buildings is that sprinklers would be required. One would normally be advised by the fire service to install them; in fact, one would probably be required to do so by building regulations. It would be interesting to know the grounds on which Yarl's Wood escaped the normal constraints.
	I understand from the Statement that,
	"Subject to . . . remedial action, the undamaged sections at Yarl's Wood have been declared safe".
	What remedial action is that? The House is entitled to know exactly what must be done to the remainder of the establishment.
	The real question is that of liability for the damage. If there was any neglect of normal procedures, it could create a potential liability for the Government. We are entitled to ask whether that it is the case.
	The next question that comes to mind is whether the facilities in Yarl's Wood were adequate to meet the needs of the people who were to be detained there. Was there enough to occupy them? Or did they finally set fire to the place out of boredom? Yarl's Wood was only partially in use, at nothing like its proposed capacity. Yet it apparently had an immense security problem. What will happen once the place is in full use?
	If security is a problem, one might have thought that events at Yarl's Wood provided sufficient warning to tighten security at all equivalent centres. If that did not happen—and apparently it did not, because a week later it was possible for nine people to escape from Harmondsworth, a centre fulfilling a similar function—one has to ask why not.
	Various questions must be asked about those being held in Yarl's Wood. Are they asylum seekers who have completed the asylum process and are waiting to be deported? They would have nothing to lose in raising Cain. If those people had completed the asylum process, then for how long had they been waiting? It seems to me that for those who have completed the process, a prolonged stay in what is in effect indefinite detention without trial—which I recall we have complained about in a different context—is not appropriate. What is to happen when the detainees are caught? Are they to be charged with criminal damage and possibly sent to prison, thus prolonging their stay in this country? Would it not be more appropriate to ship them out forthwith?
	I turn now to the question of whether any of those people's asylum applications are still being processed? What is to happen with regard to those applications? That is a serious question because, clearly, if those people have indulged in this kind of behaviour, then I do not believe that it would be appropriate to continue with the process of asylum application. I think that the House is entitled to answers to those questions.
	The Home Secretary has sought to meet a target of 30,000 deportations per annum, although at the moment the pledge to achieve that on a brief timescale has disappeared. We want the Home Secretary's procedures in this area to be successful, but the events at Yarl's Wood would suggest that it will be much more difficult to achieve the results the Home Secretary seeks than initially it appeared.
	Having said that, I am not sure whether the Minister will be able to respond to all the questions that I and, most probably, other Members put to him today. However, I think that not only this House but the public and especially the people of Bedford—who have not been given any information by any source of authority since the tragic events—are entitled to some answers. One wonders whether, ultimately, a proper public inquiry will be necessary in order to set the public mind at rest.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and to echo the thanks which the noble Lord has already expressed to the fire service, the police and the Prison Service who have all done their best to cope with this tragedy.
	With regard to the expert sources that have been mentioned, did the noble Lord consult the Chief Inspector of Fire Services or the chief of the Bedfordshire police? Can he tell the House which authorities disagreed with the expert sources that he mentioned, given that the majority endorsed the decision not to install sprinklers at Yarl's Wood? It is obvious that there was a difference of opinion among the experts and we are entitled to know what was the weight of opinion on these various matters so that we can judge the behaviour of the Home Office in deciding to opt for the cheapest solution, which in the end proved to be extremely costly.
	Will Mr Stephen Moore's terms of reference be wide enough to allow him to look into the causes of the discontent among the inmates, such as we have drawn to the attention of the Minister from time to time? I refer to the inadequate telephone facilities, delays in passing on faxed messages from lawyers to asylum applicants and the practice of waking inmates in the middle of the night to take up with them disciplinary matters that could have waited until the morning. Admittedly, those matters should not have led any inmate to commit the criminal damage that we have seen at Yarl's Wood and we join in deploring the extent of the destruction that has been committed.
	Can the Minister say whether the visiting committee at Yarl's Wood had formally directed the attention of the manager to any matters which called for his attention under Rule 61 of the detention centre rules? If so, was the manager alerted to the trouble that was in the offing?
	Can the noble Lord tell the House what is the estimated cost of the damage that has been caused to Yarl's Wood? Can he say anything about the risks incurred by the taxpayer in these circumstances? Does this not throw a different light on PFI contracts if at the end of the day the sum of £35 million—or whatever is the final cost of the damage caused—falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer because the contract entered into with Group 4 allows for proceedings to be taken by its insurers against the Bedfordshire police force, the results of which are uncertain? Surely that is a matter which both the House and the country as a whole are entitled to take into consideration when judging the validity of the Government's whole policy on PFI contracts. Has the possibility of the destruction of large quantities of physical assets been taken into consideration when entering into PFI contracts for other detention centres, prisons and so forth?
	On the PFI contract, is it not significant that trouble often occurs during the early stages of the management undertaken by one of the private enterprise companies? The noble Lord will recall that problems were also encountered with Campsfield House, which was managed by the same company. In the circumstances, does the noble Lord not think that it would be wise for the Home Office to appoint officials to superintend the operation of such establishments in the early stages of their management by private companies? That would ensure that the companies concerned observed the conditions of their contracts.
	With regard to the speeding up of removals and toughening the regime, can the noble Lord assure the House that he does not intend to take away any of the legal rights which detainees at present enjoy? Can he further explain how it will be possible to speed up removals any more without impairing the rights that detainees have in law? Furthermore, what exactly does the noble Lord mean when he refers to "transforming" the regime? How can it be fair to worsen conditions for the whole of the detention estate in order to cope with the malicious damage caused by a few people?
	Finally, taking up a remark made by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, does the Minister think it wise to hold 900 people in a single centre? Yarl's Wood is by far the largest of the centres either planned or in operation in the detention estate. However, with fewer than 300 inmates, we have already seen these problems. We can only speculate on the magnitude of the difficulties that would be caused to the management by such a large establishment if it were filled to capacity. Does the noble Lord not think that the Home Office should review the policy of making provision for such large establishments, given the disciplinary problems that they entail? Perhaps the Home Office should think again and consider constructing a number of smaller centres rather than large individual establishments such as Yarl's Wood.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support of the actions of the public services. I shall do my best to respond to the various points that have been made.
	The centre is of a basic timber construction with brick cladding. In that sense, there is nothing state-of-the-art about the building. As I said on the day of the fire, the design and construction of Yarl's Wood and Harmondsworth are similar. After my visit, I had the opportunity to examine Home Office background papers from 2000 and 2001. It is abundantly clear that Ministers were given different advice about the installation of sprinklers at Yarl's Wood as opposed to Harmondsworth. Two fire services gave different advice in respect of effectively the same kind of operation. I can well understand the conflict within the department as to which way to jump. It is clear—there is no argument about it—that Bedford fire service gave one set of advice and London Fire Brigade gave different advice in respect of similar buildings of a slightly different size but of the same order, compared with the rest of the estate.
	We are not certain that sprinklers would have put the fire out. The fire service has not completed its investigations. The building was only accessible this afternoon, by dogs. The roof of the building, which is a large structure in terms of its area, has caved in and is extremely dangerous. Notwithstanding the conflicting advice, with hindsight we take the view that sprinklers make sense—certainly in respect of future removal centres and of Harmondsworth and Yarl's Wood, which are different from the other centres. I accept that it costs more to install sprinklers after a building has been constructed.
	As to the facilities available to detainees, it was fortuitous that there was a press open day at Yarl's Wood before the fire, in January—put back from November. I visited the centre unannounced on the morning of 30th November, when about 130 detainees were present. The press were therefore very informed about the facilities. I do not think that anyone could argue but that the facilities are good—bearing in mind that Yarl's Wood is a removal centre and people cannot come and go as they like—in terms of their range, healthcare and purposeful activities.
	Before the fire there were 385 persons at the centre, representing 65 nationalities. The facilities aimed at keeping people occupied in stressful circumstances were excellent compared with those available in the past. Those facilities were slowly being built up over a planned five to six-month period. The centre was not intended to be at full stretch, with 100 per cent of the beds being used, until April or May.
	As noble Lords may have seen from aerial photographs, Yarl's Wood basically comprised two units built to an almost identical plan but different inside. One unit has been destroyed. The other was not being used but was about to come on stream. The unit destroyed was for single males, single females and families. The other unit was meant exclusively for males. Many facilities were duplicated, in terms of healthcare and kitchens.
	Of the 385 individuals being held before the fire, 294 were due for removal—although a date had not been set in every case. Some 248 cases were removable but the date had not been set. Forty-six cases were awaiting removal directions that had been set. Of the other 91, the largest sub-group were 72 detainees who had arrived ex-Oakington with asylum appeals outstanding.
	The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked about the numbers. Since Yarl's Wood opened 674 have left. It is difficult to give a true picture because one is not dealing with a stable situation. Yarl's Wood was brand new and being built up. It was not full to capacity immediately. There were no detainees there in mid-November. By the time of the fire, there were 385—and 764 people had been into Yarl's Wood and left. Some 400-plus of those individuals had been removed from the country. Others got bail or went to other centres. There was a fairly rapid turnover. It is true that a couple of people were at Yarl's Wood for a while since just after it opened. I do not think that anyone was there from the day that it opened but, exceptionally, someone was present from two days later.
	There is a target to remove 2,500 failed asylum seekers a month—30,000 a year. Our expectation is to achieve that removal rate in the next financial year. I do not have official figures before me but the past three months was the first time that we have ever removed more than 1,000 failed asylum seekers monthly, on the trot. Last month, the figure was close to 1,200—including dependants.
	It is not true to say that local people were kept completely devoid of information. I fully accept that local people have gone through a lot. When I visited Yarl's Wood at 9 o'clock in the morning, the fire was still burning. The smoke envelope was about 15 miles long. From the M1, I could not tell whether it was a cloud or smoke.
	We will look again at the access road. The local council refused planning permission for a different access road but we are taking that aspect in hand ourselves. There are good grounds, because of a bypass being built nearby, for a better access road—not just for the removal centre but because there are industrial plants on the site. The alternative would take the access road away from the immediate residents. The Home Secretary will make a personal visit to Yarl's Wood.
	I make it absolutely clear that sprinklers were not required by law. I am not defending hindsight or acting on a hunch but the two buildings fully conformed with all building regulations. There was no cost-cutting and no corners were cut simply because it was a Crown estate. That was not relevant. Neither Harmondsworth nor Yarl's Wood had fire certificates because they are not normally granted until a building has been up and running for about six months. They would not be operating now unless the fire service had checked on the present situation.
	Both noble Lords asked about liability. The idea of transferring risk goes straight down the plughole if those who allegedly carry the risk—at some profit—shift the risk back onto the public at the first opportunity. We shall have to look at that issue seriously. The centres are part of the private sector prison estate. It will not be long before people start looking at other PFI contracts, quite legitimately. We have the benefit of some hindsight now, which will beg lots of questions on other contracts. I do not wish to slag off the insurance industry but it is a common occurrence that insurers like to take the premiums but like having to pay out less.
	The terms of reference of the Moore inquiry will be published and I hope that they will be wide enough to cover the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised—although he made the point that whatever difficulties may have arisen at Yarl's Wood, they were no excuse for burning the place down. I do not know whether the visiting committee made any reports but I will look into that matter. If I cannot answer noble Lords now, I will write to them.
	I do not know the cost of the damage. The one-off building is completely gutted. It did not just provide accommodation but contained the control centre and ancillary facilities such as the visiting centre.
	There is a much more relaxed regime at removal centres. They are not prisons. There are visitors in and out at 9 o'clock at night. There are no limits. There is much more internal movement. We will have to look at the regime that operates inside the centre. As I made clear, we have removed some people and returned them to prison because they have a record of violence. We have reviewed all the existing detainees. I understand that 25 individuals from the removal estate are back in prison.
	I do not know whether it was right to build a large centre for 900 people. I believe that Harmondsworth has a capacity of about 550, while others are smaller. The centre was built in two quite distinct units. The police fought the fire defensively in order to ensure that the generators, and the fuel, were not attacked. They also sought to stop the fire spreading to the adjacent similar building.
	As regards staff, I can tell the House that we have considered the position. I understand that there were 51 staff on duty that night. In terms of a category C prison with the same number of inmates, we asked the Prison Service to tell us what the staff position would be on such a night. We understand that there would be some 36 prison officers on duty. Therefore, any idea that there were fewer staff on duty compared with the position in a category C prison is not the case.
	Clearly the situation got out of hand because people gained access to equipment with which they could smash up the security cameras. Those cameras were taken out of use by the detainees using equipment that they had obtained from lockers. As I recall from the time of my visit to the centre, I believe that there were something like 300 cameras around the site under the supervision of the control room. That was part of the difficulty when control of operations was lost.
	I apologise to noble Lords. I seem to have over-run my time limit. However, in conclusion, I should point out that there are Home Office contract managers on site at these locations whose task is to monitor the contract. As I understand it, they are permanently resident. Each time that I have visited a removal centre—some of which visits have been unannounced—there has always been a Home Office contract manager available.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there are moments when a Minister committed to sensible policies—the Minister being the Home Secretary—deserves support, and that this is such a moment? Indeed, the same applies to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Does he agree that the prime cause of this affair was plain old-fashioned human wickedness, and that the long delays and lengthy periods spent in detention by these detainees have been lawyer driven? Indeed, such lawyers have a financial interest in prolonging the process. Will the noble Lord further agree that putting sprinklers in buildings which will house people who may want to make mischief provides a very easy way of doing so?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, hits the nail on the head with his final point. That is one of the problems with sprinklers: they can be totally abused in the circumstances. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why there are no sprinklers in the prison estate. Further, as I have said before in this House, the legal industry in this country has a vested interest in these matters. Those concerned are plying their trade and have over the years looked for loopholes in the law to initiate delay after delay for which we, as taxpayers, end up paying—funded by the Home Office. One of the reasons behind the constant, if you like, conveyor-belt of legislation is that each time loopholes are presented we are busy trying to close them.
	In the forthcoming legislation based on the recently-published White Paper, I can assure noble Lords that we shall certainly be closing further loopholes that the legal industry has been exploiting. I should like to make it absolutely clear that we shall do so without removing the fundamental rights of asylum seekers to have their case heard and fully appealed. I am grateful to the noble Lord for his initial remarks. It was the detainees who set fire to the centre; no one else. That is a real problem and one that we shall have to cope with and consider in terms of the future.

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, in congratulating my noble friend on the way that this matter has been addressed. I have in mind, in particular, his decision to visit the site the day after the disaster and to reassure the local people—a move that I understand was very well received.
	Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to the position of the 22 people who absconded and who have not, as yet, been found. Can he tell the House what is the current legal position of those former detainees? For example, do we hold data on those people; that is, the kind of data that my noble friend proposed to the House some weeks ago when we dealt with the White Paper? Do we have data on their DNA, on identification, on fingerprinting, or on any other forms of identification?

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should remind the House that there are 22 people for whom we cannot account at present. We have literally just sent dogs into the building this afternoon. We are talking about a major fire that covered a very large floor area of building. We have no evidence to suggest that there were any fatalities, but we cannot be absolutely certain in that respect; nor, indeed, can anyone be at this time. We know the identity of those who have absconded. The idea that all the records were burnt is absolute nonsense. Indeed, I tried to correct that assumption with the media the following afternoon. The records kept at the centre were destroyed, but the individual court files—the Immigration and Nationality Directorate files—were held in different parts of the country. Therefore, we have not lost the files.
	All those in the centre who became asylum seekers post-1993 would have been fingerprinted because that is when the fingerprinting process started, so we have identification to that extent. We do not have the use of the new identity card procedure because the cards began to be issued during the latter part of January. Those people who absconded from the centre removed themselves from a unit where they had been lawfully placed. However, as I do not know the stage of each case in terms of whether the process was completed and whether those concerned were either awaiting removal or the lodging of an appeal, I am unable to give my noble friend any detailed information.

Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill

Report received.
	Clause 1 [Registration: provision of signature and date of birth]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 1, line 11, at end insert "and
	(c) in relation to each such person—
	(i) his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii) a statement of whether or not he has been resident in Northern Ireland for the whole of the three-month period ending on the 15th October in the year in question, and
	(iii) any address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered (other than the address in respect of which the form is completed),"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is a significant number of government amendments in this first group; namely, Amendments Nos. l to 6, 10, 12 and 16 to 19. I put these amendments compendiously, and they have been agreed in this grouping. I believe I can reasonably say that such amendments are the result of assurances that I gave in response to points raised by noble Lords on earlier occasions. I have been in correspondence with a number of your Lordships on these matters.
	I shall briefly outline the purpose of the amendments. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6 will require a person applying to be registered in respect of a Northern Ireland address to give a national insurance number, or to make a statement that he does not have such a number. The applicant will also be required to make a statement that he or she has been resident in Northern Ireland for the requisite three-month period before the date of application, and to state any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he or she is, or has applied to be, registered. Those particular points of detail were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and other noble Lords. It took some time to produce an appropriate draft. That is why we are dealing with these matters on Report, rather than doing so previously in Committee. I wrote to noble Lords in that respect.
	Amendment No. 4 puts new subsection (5A) into Section 10A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It adds to the provisions contained in that section regarding the circumstances in which the chief electoral officer must, or may, remove a person's name from the register. A person's name will be removed in respect of any address if he returns an application for registration in respect of that address without any of the required information specified in the Bill. For example, if an application does not have the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates, if it lacks mention of the date of birth, if it fails to specify a national insurance number or omits the statement that there is no such number, the person's name will be removed. I hope that the provisions in Amendment No. 4 meet the anxieties and questions raised during earlier stages of the Bill. As can clearly be seen, Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 are essentially consequential.
	Amendment No. 10 amends Section 6(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1985, which specifies requirements where an elector applies for an absent vote at elections for an indefinite period. An application can be granted only if it states the applicant's national insurance number, or states that the applicant does not have one, and if the chief electoral officer is satisfied that the number or statement on the application corresponds with the number or statement that the applicant gave on application for registration. Amendment No. 12 is a similar amendment to Section 7(1) of the 1985 Act.
	Amendment No. 16 produces a new clause to amend Schedule 2 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, provisions which may be contained in regulations to registration. It provides for the disclosure by the authority responsible for national insurance numbers to the chief electoral officer following a request by him of the national insurance number recorded in respect of a specified individual or of the fact that the individual is not recorded as having such a number. The chief electoral officer will be able to cross check other information.
	Amendment No. 17 makes it an offence to provide false information. Amendment No. 18 amends the Long Title to include a reference to national insurance numbers. Amendment No. 19 amends the Long Title to include a reference to the fact that a person will be required to supply, on application to the register, information relating to their period of residence in Northern Ireland and appropriate addresses.
	Amendment No. 8 inserts a new clause which would require electors to indicate at registration if they were registered at any other address. Any person knowingly giving false information will be liable to criminal prosecution.
	I am genuinely grateful for the way in which these matters of national insurance numbers have been approached. I did say that I would go away with an open mind to see whether, consistent with the spirit of what we all wanted, we could deliver the appropriate changes. I simply want to say how hard the officials and the draftsmen in the Northern Ireland Office have worked to produce what I hope is a satisfactory answer. I beg to move.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that very clear and swift outline of this group of amendments concerning the use of national insurance numbers. I also take this opportunity to thank him and his staff for the work that they have done. I know from conversations with the noble and learned Lord outside the Chamber that there has been a considerable amount of work and rethinking in order to have the amendment drafted as it is. It is extremely comprehensive. From my reading of it and that of my helpers, which was several times over, I believe that it covers the necessary areas very neatly and thoroughly.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, has just said. The Minister has been most helpful. He wrote to me, as promised, on the point that I raised. I am particularly pleased that national insurance numbers have now been included as a means of identification of those registering to vote. I draw attention to the fact that the three-month period of residence for someone coming from outside Northern Ireland is now very firmly on the face of the Bill. That will prevent considerable abuse of the electoral process in Northern Ireland.
	It is perhaps ironic that within about a week of my raising that particular matter of voters coming from the Irish Republic and registering in Northern Ireland in order to pervert the electoral system there, I saw voters in the Irish Republic causing a row about the fact that it was now happening the other way and that Sinn Fein voters in Northern Ireland were registering in the south in the hope of perverting the electoral process there. It has particular significance in the Irish Republic and as regards the next election. But that is not our business.
	In debate it often suddenly occurs to one that perhaps one could have done better in amending the legislation. One thought occurs to me and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will give me some reassurance on it. In the past we have seen a reluctance at times to enforce the law and punishments for those who break the law. I have a strange feeling that this legislation will be tested at every turn by those who want to pervert the electoral process in Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could reassure me that there will be an immediate and stringent imposition of the penalties included in the Bill. In fact, the thought that occurred to me was that it would have been helpful if we had had some arbitrary penalty to be imposed like a traffic warden imposing a penalty for illegal parking. The chief electoral officer could then immediately impose a penalty if he found that there was widespread testing—that is what it will be—of the effectiveness of this legislation.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for this raft of amendments, which appear to take into account the concerns expressed on these Benches as regards national insurance numbers. Therefore, I am very pleased indeed to see these amendments put forward by the Government.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am very grateful. I shall deal very quickly with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis. I believe that the real answer on which he and I would agree is that if there is any form of electoral malpractice the key appears to me to be prompt complaint, early prosecution and appropriate sentencing. I do not agree with him about parking wardens. I have recently received a ticket. I wrote to complain, saying that I had committed no offence. Amazingly and perhaps uniquely, the parking authorities replied that for once I was right.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, perhaps I may raise one query. In his opening remarks the noble and learned Lord mentioned Amendment No. 8, which stands in my name. I do not believe that it is necessary. I am not sure whether the Government want it moved or not.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is quite right. Amendment No. 8 is not necessary. I simply referred to it as being included in the grouping. I am grateful for that clarification.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 6:
	Page 2, line 6, at end insert "and
	(c) in relation to each such person—
	(i) his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii) a statement of whether or not he has been resident in Northern Ireland for the whole of the three-month period ending on the date of the application, and
	(iii) any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered,"
	Page 2, line 15, at end insert—
	"( ) in subsection (5), at the beginning there is inserted "Subject to subsection (5A) below,""
	Page 2, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
	""(5A) A person's name is to be removed from the register in respect of any address if—
	(a) the form mentioned in section 10(4) above in respect of that address does not include all the information relating to him required by virtue of section 10(4A) above; or
	(b) the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement.","
	Page 2, line 22, leave out ""(5)" there is inserted "or (5A)"" and insert ""above," there is inserted "or his name is to be removed from it by virtue of subsection (5A) above,""
	Page 2, line 30, at end insert "and
	(c) in relation to each such person—
	(i) his national insurance number or a statement that he does not have one,
	(ii) a statement of whether or not he has been resident in Northern Ireland for the whole of the three-month period ending on the date of the application, and
	(iii) any other address in the United Kingdom in respect of which he is or has applied to be registered,"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.
	Clause 2 [Dates of birth and ballot papers]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 3, line 5, leave out "to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland"

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the second group of amendments, Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 11 and 14, stands in my name. They seek simply to make the drafting more elegant. As the legislation stands at present, the registration officer and the chief electoral officer are referred to in the same provision. As any schoolboy knows, in Northern Ireland they are one and the same. Amendment No, 7 corrects that as regards Clause 2. Amendments Nos. 9, 11 and 14 refer to Clause 3. They are to make the Bill rather more attractive as a product. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
	Clause 3 [Absent votes and declarations of identity]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
	Page 3, line 34, leave out "to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland"
	Page 3, line 43, leave out "and"." and insert—
	"(bc) the application either states the applicant's national insurance number or states that he does not have one and the registration officer is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A) below, and", and.
	(b) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(bc) above, the registration officer must be satisfied—
	(a) if the application states a national insurance number, that the requirements of subsection (1B) below are met, or
	(b) if the application states that the applicant does not have a national insurance number, that no such number was supplied as his national insurance number pursuant to section 10(4A)(c)(i), 10A(1A)(c)(i) or 13A(2A)(c)(i) of the principal Act.
	(1B) The requirements of this subsection are met if—
	(a) the number stated as mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) above is the same as the one supplied as the applicant's national insurance number pursuant to section 10(4A)(c)(i), 10A(1A)(c)(i) or 13A(2A)(c)(i) of the principal Act, or
	(b) no national insurance number was supplied under any of those provisions, but the registration officer is not aware of any reason to doubt the authenticity of the application.""
	Page 4, line 1, leave out "to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland"
	Page 4, line 10, leave out "and"." and insert—
	"(bc) the application either states the applicant's national insurance number or states that he does not have one and the registration officer is satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1A) below, and", and.
	(b) after subsection (1) there is inserted—
	"(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(bc) above, the registration officer must be satisfied—
	(a) if the application states a national insurance number, that the requirements of subsection (1B) below are met, or
	(b) if the application states that the applicant does not have a national insurance number, that no such number was supplied as his national insurance number pursuant to section 10(4A)(c)(i), 10A(1A)(c)(i) or 13A(2A)(c)(i) of the principal Act.
	(1B) The requirements of this subsection are met if—
	(a) the number stated as mentioned in subsection (1A)(a) above is the same as the one supplied as the applicant's national insurance number pursuant to section 10(4A)(c)(i), 10A(1A)(c)(i) or 13A(2A)(c)(i) of the principal Act, or
	(b) no national insurance number was supplied under any of those provisions, but the registration officer is not aware of any reason to doubt the authenticity of the application.""
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Page 4, line 10, at end insert—
	"( ) In section 12 (offences as to declaration, etc.), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) If a person presents to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland a form for an absent vote on a form (copy or otherwise) other than one supplied by and uniquely encoded by the Chief Electoral Officer, he shall be guilty of an offence.""

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, we all want to achieve the same end, which is fraud-free elections. As we have already said, the department has been very quick to recognise and rectify a number of the issues. However, this amendment follows a theme which I raised in Committee and to which the noble and learned Lord gave a positive response. It seeks to put on the face of the Bill a requirement to ensure that the absent vote forms to be used are those supplied and uniquely encoded by the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.
	At present, "like-effect" forms are acceptable, including those supplied by the political parties. As those of us with direct experience of Northern Ireland elections know, this is open to widespread abuse. My amendment would make it an offence to present a form for an absent vote which is not one supplied by and uniquely encoded—by bar code or other means—by the chief electoral officer. This safeguard will add to the armoury proposed by the Bill for tackling electoral fraud.
	In response to my amendment at Committee stage, the noble and learned Lord said:
	"The chief electoral officer already has plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote are given a unique identifier. I agree with his caution: one must be careful to ensure that it is not possible to identify the way in which a citizen has voted in a secret ballot".
	I made that point in Committee. The noble and learned Lord went on to say:
	"The chief electoral officer plans to introduce either a serial number or a bar code. As he is already going to do that, we do not need to legislate for it.".—[Official Report, 4/2/02; cols. 486-487.]
	That was a very welcome reply.
	However, I bring the issue back for two reasons: first, to add on to the face of the Bill a requirement for only the form issued by the chief electoral officer to be the legitimate and valid form; and, secondly, to make it an offence to present a form other than that one supplied by the chief electoral officer. The offence that I propose would be up to level three on the standard scale. The noble and learned Lord may be able to assure me that it would be de facto an offence, and I would welcome that assurance.
	As the noble and learned Lord understands from our discussions outside the Chamber, in simple terms my objective is to ensure that after an election is over and the systems are being checked, absentee forms will be counted, and the number used in the election should be that number or a lesser number than those issued by the electoral officer. If there are more in the electoral ballot boxes than those issued by the electoral officer, clearly they would have been used fraudulently.
	This gap in the system has been exploited fairly thoroughly over many years. I ask the noble and learned Lord, once again, to work with his officials to see if we can find a means of closing this loophole. I know and understand fully the anxiety of the Government to ensure that we do not deprive older people of the opportunity of voting, but if we leave it open to photo-copied bar-coded papers or anything of that nature we will leave a loophole. So much good work has been done on the Bill to close down the opportunities for those who wish to distort elections, it could be made that much tighter by closing yet another little hole. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I support the amendment. There should be a special form for the absent vote rather than a desultory letter written by the person seeking an absent vote. In the circumstances of the Bill, it is clear that information is required—such as national insurance numbers and other information—and it would be an odd system which did not have a form. If he were to get a letter, the chief electoral officer or his staff would almost immediately, in nearly every case, have to write back to that person and say, "Please fill in the requisite form". Indeed, I hope that that would happen in any event, rather than it being an offence to write a simple letter. The object of the amendment is to combat electoral fraud. In the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland, having a proper form would be the right way to do it.

Lord Cooke of Islandreagh: My Lords, when the Bill first came to this House it was a travesty and quite worthless for its stated objective of preventing electoral fraud. I add my thanks and appreciation to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, for the work that he has put in and for bringing forward a series of amendments in relation to the important issue of the national insurance number and related matters. Those changes have made all the difference to the Bill.
	However, this is a task that we cannot complete in one trial because the devices and ruses which will be used by Sinn Fein—which is expert in all matters of electoral fraud—will find gaps. This amendment seeks to close one gap and it is important that there must be a form from the electoral office.
	Let me add one remark on the subject in general. In the past, the electoral office and the electoral officer have not been too busy in trying to catch people out and things have slipped by. I am sure that the officer will have to be much firmer and stricter in future and ensure that everything is looked at to prevent electoral fraud. It is amusing that the Irish Republic has suddenly taken fright. It is holding an election in some weeks time and has found that members of Sinn Fein are working in ways quite unknown there. They are determined, again, to become experts in twisting the democratic system. I support the amendment, which adds another piece to the chain.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, but it does not. If one looks at the amendment—if I have got it rightly in my own mind—it states:
	"If a person presents to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland a form for an absent vote on a form (copy or otherwise) other than one supplied by and uniquely encoded by the Chief Electoral Officer he shall be guilty of an offence".
	Let us take the position—oh joy of hypothesis—of someone who has not received an original form from the chief electoral officer, perhaps because of a strike or the postman not carrying out his delivery, and writes in making a request for an absent vote on a form which is not the original by definition. I do not think that any of your Lordships, even at the most draconian time of the day or night, would wish that to be made an offence.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, with respect, that particular rule could apply to the delivery of a postal vote. If a postal vote does not arrive and the person is unable to go to the ballot, then of course that person is precluded from voting and nothing can be done about it. With an effective system, that is not likely to happen frequently.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have not made myself clear. The consequence of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, would be that if someone applied for an absent vote on a form which was not the original, he or she would be guilty of a criminal offence. It cannot be the intention to introduce a criminal sanction. I would be very surprised to see my colleagues and friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches want a criminal conviction for such an act. But, of course, if they do wish for such a thing, I am quite happy to sit down while they make their position clear.
	I understand the point behind this, but I do not believe that what is proposed is the way to get it. It is the norm at the moment that absent votes are applied for on forms or copies of forms submitted. I repeat: the CEO already plans to take administrative measures to ensure that applications for an absent vote, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, rightly said, will be given some kind of unique identifier—whether it is the original form or a copy—either a serial number or a bar code. He can do that without legislation. That is what he intends to do.
	I do not believe that the present amendment is capable of working. It is possible, of course—indeed, your Lordships may say it is quite likely—that I have completely misread it, but I do not think that I have. I shall not close my mind to the point. We all want to be able to have elections which give maximum confidence to all parts of the voting public. I do not think this will do that. I certainly will not close my mind to looking at it again, but I am not sure that I shall be able to meet your Lordships' concerns on this occasion because I have gone fairly vigorously along the road of compromise.
	If any of your Lordships believe that I have got it wrong and the elderly widow—it must be an elderly widow, please, for the purposes of my example—sends in an application for an absent vote, is it your Lordships' settled determination that she should be guilty of a criminal offence?

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, my belief is that if the elderly widow writes a letter, the correct response is to say: "This is an inquiry. Here is a form to fill in".

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is not what the amendment says. If, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, wishes to withdraw it, I am happy to forgive and to overlook it.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his patience. We have perhaps not drafted the amendment as neatly as we might have done. I know that the noble and learned Lord understands my problem, and I had not intended to divide the House. I shall ask leave to withdraw the amendment and see whether the noble and learned Lord and his team can come up with some method that will reassure us at Third Reading that the loophole is closed. In the meantime, we shall also attempt to examine the matter. We may be able to have a meeting outside the Chamber and make some suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 14:
	Page 4, line 26, leave out "to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland"
	On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Glentoran: moved Amendment No. 15:
	After Clause 4, insert the following new clause—
	"VOTERS: SPECIFIED DOCUMENTS
	(1) From 1st May 2003, paragraph (1E) of rule 37 of the parliamentary election rules applicable to election in Northern Ireland, imported into Schedule 1 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2) by section 1(2) of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Act 1985 (c. 2), is amended in accordance with subsection (2).
	(2) For sub-paragraphs (a) to (e) there is substituted—
	"(a) the plastic photographic card which is, or forms the counterpart of, a current licence to drive a motor vehicle;
	(b) a current passport issued by the Government of the United Kingdom or by the Republic of Ireland;
	(c) a senior citizen's concessionary fare pass issued by the Northern Ireland Department of Regional Government;
	(d) a current electoral identity card issued under section 13C of this Act.""

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord and I have exchanged letters and have discussed this proposal. I know that the noble and learned Lord is behind the amendment. Indeed, he has written to me in extensive terms stating the Government's position. If he would be good enough to tell the House what he said to me so that it can be set out in Hansard for the future, I do not see any need to pursue the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I await with interest the noble and learned Lord's response. I trust that the amendment will be taken on board.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the stance we adopted was that there plainly was a good deal of informed concern. The noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, asked me particular questions about percentages which I said I would research. I have written to various noble Lords about the matter. Perhaps I may refer briefly to the results of the research.
	An omnibus survey was carried out in March 2001 by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. We wanted to find out who, among potential voters, had access to photographic identification which is presently acceptable. The results indicated that about 68 per cent of people in Northern Ireland had a passport and about 71 per cent had a photographic driving licence. The indication is that about 30 per cent of the electorate do not have a form of photographic identification which is presently acceptable—that is, about 400,000 people. I repeat—and I am happy to respond as fully as I can to the invitation from the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran—that it is our intention to offer every one of those 400,000 or so who require an electoral identity card every reasonable opportunity to acquire one before May 2003.
	One of the types of passes mentioned in the amendment—I simply point this out; I do not mention it in any nit-picking sense—is a current concessionary travel pass. My advice is that that is not secure enough to be relied upon for the future. So at the moment the card referred to in the amendment would not be acceptable. We hope to issue a new card in April to all those over the age of 65. That will be secure; hence we are adding it to the list of specified documents.
	I am happy to give the particular assurance that the noble Lord sought; namely, I can reassure your Lordships that the Government will conduct an extensive publicity campaign to coincide with this year's annual canvass informing the Northern Ireland electorate of the extensive changes to the electoral system as a result of the Bill.
	The chief electoral officer will include a question on the annual canvass form asking if people will require an electoral identity card. He will also use the opportunity to inform electors that specific photographic identification will be required at the polling station from May 2003. We are confident that the period from the annual canvass, in October 2002, to the Assembly elections in 2003 will allow everyone the time and opportunity to avail themselves of an electoral identity card if they should require one. I believe that that is the full assurance, in the precise, terms that the noble Lord asked me to give.

Lord Maginnis of Drumglass: My Lords, in the light of the noble and learned Lord's remarks, could a process be put in place whereby a photographic ID could be provided before May 2003? I apologise for harking on about the mischievousness of some of the electorate in Northern Ireland, but I believe that opportunities will be taken, if provided, to delay the whole process if it does not begin until the canvass returns have been analysed. I ask the noble and learned Lord whether, as soon as the Bill becomes law, he will put in place the provision for those who understand that they will require photographic ID to obtain such ID before they are notified as a result of the canvass. In other words, if the process can start straight away, those who are willing to participate will be able to avail themselves of it speedily. In that way there will be less opportunity for others to give the excuse of not being able to obtain their photographic ID in time.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a good point. However, my advice is that we need to conduct the publicity at the time of the canvass. A period from October 2002 to May 2003 is probably the appropriate time, but I shall certainly take the noble Lord's point on board.

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, once again I thank the noble and learned Lord for his assistance. I also hope to receive one of the new Translink passes in the very near future. On that happy note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 16:
	After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATIONS AS TO INFORMATION ABOUT NATIONAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
	(1) In Schedule 2 to the 1983 Act (provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration), paragraph 1 is amended as follows.
	(2) After sub-paragraph (4) there is inserted—
	"(4A) Provision for the disclosure (otherwise than by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) above) by the authority responsible for national insurance numbers ("the relevant authority") to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, following a request by him, of—
	(a) the national insurance number recorded in respect of an individual specified or described in the request, or of the fact that the individual is not recorded as having a national insurance number, and
	(b) in the case of such an individual recorded as having a national insurance number, any name and former name, date of birth, sex and address as recorded by the relevant authority in respect of the individual in question.
	(4B) Provision authorising the relevant authority to charge fees to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to cover the expenses of the relevant authority in complying with such requests."
	(3) In sub-paragraph (5), after "sub-paragraph (4)" there is inserted "or (4A)"."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 6 [Offences]:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 5, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 14 on page 6 and insert—
	""13D PROVISION OF FALSE INFORMATION
	(1) A person who provides false information pursuant to any requirement of section 10(4A), 10A(1A) or 13A(2A) above—
	(a) on a form mentioned in section 10(4) above and returned to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland; or
	(b) in an application made to him under section 10A or 13A above,
	is guilty of an offence.
	(2) A person who provides false information to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland for the purpose of obtaining the dispensation referred to in section 10(4B), 10A(1B) or 13A(2B) above is guilty of an offence.
	(3) In relation to a signature, "false information" for the purposes of subsection (1) means a signature which—
	(a) is not the usual signature of; or
	(b) was written by a person other than,
	the person whose signature it purports to be.
	(4) A person does not commit an offence under subsection (1) above if he did not know, and had no reason to suspect, that the information was false.
	(5) Where sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the defence under subsection (4) above, the court shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not."
	On Question, amendment agreed to.
	In the Title:

Lord Williams of Mostyn: moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
	Line 2, leave out "and dates of birth" and insert ", dates of birth and national insurance numbers"
	Line 3, after "Ireland" insert "and of information relating to their period of residence in Northern Ireland and addresses in respect of which they are or have applied to be registered"
	On Question, amendments agreed to.

State Pension Credit Bill [H.L.]

Read a third time.
	Clause 2 [Guarantee credit]:

Baroness Turner of Camden: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 2, line 28, after "cases," insert "which shall not include a patient,"

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, in moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8, which is grouped with it.
	On Report, the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross—who is unfortunately unable to be present; she is abroad—moved an amendment designed to deal with the problems that arise when old and vulnerable people suffer cuts in their benefits, including state retirement pension, when in hospital for six weeks or more. The amendment was supported by Age Concern, which has also briefed me in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. The wording of the amendment has been altered in an endeavour to meet the objections raised on Report.
	There is a strong case for re-examining the regulations. They have, after all, been in operation for over 50 years. It is clear that they cause hardship for many old and vulnerable people at a time when they are least able to cope with the bureaucracy that is often involved in establishing whatever rights they may have.
	Downratings during hospital stays have been part of the social security system since 1948. Successive governments have justified them as necessary to prevent double provision. The argument is that if the state is providing hospital food and accommodation, it need not provide full state benefits as well.
	That argument fails to take account of the continuing costs incurred by people in hospital. Age Concern points out that after six weeks in hospital, a single person can be left with just £18.15 after paying rent and council tax. They will have ongoing costs that do not disappear because they are in hospital. There will be water rates, TV and telephone rental—although a person aged 75 or over will get a free TV licence—as well as insurance costs, possibly warden charges, some heating and similar costs, plus the personal costs of being in hospital. Couples report that any small saving in food is taken up by travel costs to visit a sick spouse in hospital. There are also costs when patients leave hospital, particularly if they need continuing care.
	The case was made strongly on Report and I hope that the Minister will be able to say something to assuage the concerns that many of us have about the continuing use of downrating for hospital stays. Age Concern has supplied me with many examples of individuals who have suffered stress and real poverty as a result of the downrating operated after long hospital stays. The cuts in retirement pension cause real resentment—perhaps more than in the case of means-tested benefits such as income support. The basic state pension is based on contribution records. People ask why it has to be cut when they believe that they have contributed, just as they would have done for a private pension, which would not be cut.
	I hope that the Minister agrees that the time has come for a fresh look at the arrangements. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by the noble Baroness and by others at earlier stages in our proceedings on the Bill. I do not need to go over the ground that the noble Baroness has set out clearly, but I shall deal with the points raised in my Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.
	On Report on 12th February, I pointed out that there were three issues. The first is the principle. It is common ground between the two Front Benches that there is a strong argument against double provision. Secondly, I raised the question of the amount of the deduction. The third point related to the procedures under which overpayments were reclaimed by the Government and the time that it took for benefits to be resumed after someone was discharged from hospital.
	Amendment No. 2 would specify on the face of the Bill that there should be no reduction in the savings credit element of the state pension credit for hospital in-patients. I understand that the Minister has already agreed that and I hope that she will accept the amendment.
	Amendment No. 3 relates to the updating of the uprating. As we have noted on previous occasions, many of the items that are now part of normal family expenditure did not exist when the orders were originally introduced. I asked the Minister previously what research had been done on the arrangements for uprating the deductions that people in such circumstances suffer. I hope that she will be able to give us some assurances on that and will tell us how the various deduction calculations are currently kept up to date. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that that is done on a regular basis so that people are not unfairly penalised on the basis of out of date data.
	The speed of resumption of benefits and the arrangements for getting back overpayments remain matters of concern, but they can probably be pursued outside the ambit of the Bill in the normal course of our parliamentary business. I strongly agree that the issue ought to be reviewed, because it has not adequately been reviewed for a long time.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I begin by making my usual declaration that I work for Age Concern England. This is the first time that I have dealt with a Third Reading from the Front Bench. My understanding is that this is an opportunity for all sides to reflect on the debate so far and to make relevant points.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Unlike Report stage.

Baroness Barker: Unlike Report stage, my Lords.
	Throughout our consideration of the Bill, a number of points have been made that deserve further discussion. As the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rightly said, the system was set up in 1948 and has never been reviewed, although life is very different these days. The current system takes into account what the Government consider to be savings for the purposes of double provision, but it does not take account of expenses that occur as a result of being in hospital, either for the patient or for their carer.
	It has become clear from our debates and the many Written Questions that have been tabled that one of the main problems is the lack of co-ordination between local authorities and the Department for Work and Pensions. That is the real cause of hardship in many cases.
	Further to that, it has become evident throughout our debates that information provided to patients and their carers by hospitals and local authorities is thoroughly inadequate. The Minister said that the Department for Work and Pensions provided a great deal of information, but that information is inevitably lessened in its efficacy because the other two parts of the system do not work together.
	This is a time of great structural change in health and social care. In the past it has been very clear when a person has left hospital, but those differentiation points will not be so obvious in the future, particularly as intermediate care becomes more of a reality. It will not necessarily be clear whether a person is receiving hospital treatment, because they may not be in a hospital setting.
	It is apparent to all that the current system gives rise to great confusion. That in turn not only causes financial hardship, but also has a severe impact on the health of people who are very ill. They would not be in hospital for more than six weeks were they not.
	The conclusion of all our debates is that it is high time that the whole system was reviewed. I ask the Minister to take account of that when she responds.

Earl Russell: My Lords, I should like to add a footnote to my noble friend's remarks. The Minister's argument has rested throughout on the concept of double provision—that one is getting something extra because of being in hospital, in which a financial benefit is implied. The Department for Work and Pensions and historians both know that there are some people who will do almost anything for money. If the Minister's argument were correct, we would find some people without the benefit provision that we are dealing with who would wish to prolong their stay in hospital for the sake of financial advantage. Is she aware of any such cases?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have never argued that people would stay in hospital for financial advantage. I have merely said that there is an issue of double provision and the social security system overall has always insisted that a person cannot receive two payments from the same source, even if they are simultaneously a widow and a carer. I was trying to uphold consistency with that.
	Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 8 raise the issue of hospital downrating—a subject that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, raised in Committee and on Report. Today, my noble friend Lady Turner has taken the place of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on the subject. If your Lordships agree, I shall respond to the amendments in this group together.
	Your Lordships will recall that, on Report, I undertook to re-examine the hospital downrating issue, which is why we are again discussing it. As I explained in earlier debates, the consequence of these amendments would be double payment: it would mean that a person in hospital whose living expenses are met by the state is put on exactly the same footing as a person living in his own home and meeting all the attendant costs. Most noble Lords have agreed that there should not be double provision of benefits. The Government still believe in that principle.
	Although hospital care obviates the need for self-provision of food, laundry and heating, I accept the points made by my noble friend Lady Turner that other costs—from the television licence to council tax—continue. I said that I would re-examine the issue, and I accept that, unlike in 1948, most people including pensioners no longer budget or receive bills on a weekly basis. Instead, most people now expect to pay bills monthly or quarterly or by other methods of payment.
	I am therefore pleased to say that, today, my right honourable colleague the Minister of State for Pensions, Mr McCartney, has announced in another place that the Government intend to change the rule by which benefits are downrated at six weeks. That rule will be replaced by downrating of all benefits, and not only for pensioners, after 13 weeks in hospital. Of the 35,000 people who at a point in time are affected by the six-week rule and experience a benefit cut at six weeks, about 26,000 are pensioners and about 9,000 are of working age. In other words, the vast majority of them are pensioners. We expect that 26,000 people previously affected by the six-week rule will leave hospital by 13 weeks; 20,000 of them will be of pensionable age and 6,000 of working age. We therefore surmise that only 9,000 will continue to be affected by downrating at the 13-week stage, 6,000 of whom will be pensioners and 3,000 of working age. Of the 27,000 people affected by the 52-week rule, 11,000 will be of pension age and 16,000 of working age. The change will ensure that, on average, of the 26,000 pensioners whose benefit is reduced at six weeks, 20,000 will not in future experience that reduction. Most of them will leave hospital within 13 weeks.
	We are, however, holding firm to the principle that we should not have double provision. We believe that, after 13 weeks, which is three months, people are beginning to become "longer-stay"—I shall not say long-stay—patients.
	We nevertheless accept that the way in which people deal with their bills and financial responsibilities has changed from the days of the weekly ration book. We have listened and responded. Consequently, 20,000 of the 26,000 pensioners affected by the arrangements will no longer be so affected. I hope that your Lordships agree that the Government have moved very significantly, in a decent, sensible and generous manner, while recognising the principle that there should not be double provision, particularly for those who are longer-stay patients in hospital. I am delighted by the Government's wise and sensible move, and I hope that your Lordships share my pleasure in it.
	For completeness I shall deal with the substance of Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 8. Amendment No. 2, which I think is a probing amendment, provides that no reduction in the savings credit should be made under the provisions of the Social Security (Hospital In-patients) Regulations. Pension credit will not be subject to those regulations. Just as income support and jobseeker's allowance currently have their own provisions relating to hospital downrating, so will pension credit. The amendment would therefore not achieve its desired effect. None the less, I presume that the noble Lord was more concerned with probing the effect of periods in hospital on the savings credit than with precision in the drafting of his amendments. I am happy to give him that assurance.
	Amendment No. 3 has a similar defect. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is seeking in this amendment to require that the rate of hospital downrating in pension credit should be reviewed every three years. While Amendment No. 1 would, in the case of patients, remove the regulatory powers designed to enable the Secretary of State to prescribe a lower amount in place of the standard minimum guarantee that would be payable to the claimant, I do not think that Amendment No. 8 defines the term "patient" in the legislation.
	As noble Lords will recall, I have already given assurances that the savings credit will not be subject to hospital downrating. Similarly, as I stated, the arguments put forward have not fallen on deaf ears. I therefore hope that the additional amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are now unnecessary. Given that the Government have moved to recognise your Lordships' concerns while still seeking to protect the position on no double provision—which must be secured within social security—I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments and will join me in being pleased at the Government's response.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I should like to express our appreciation for the change. Although it has been made in another place, it undoubtedly reflects both what has happened in this place and the Minister's influence.
	On Amendment No. 3, however, I am not quite clear why we should not have a regular review of the amounts that are deducted and so on. I did not quite understand her reply to the amendment. Such review seems sensible, and without it the position would be consistently out of date.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, fairly soon, subject to your Lordships' diaries, we shall be debating the uprating statement. That is the appropriate time to consider such issues. I do not believe that it is appropriate to address it in this Bill.

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for what I believe to be a very substantial advance and I think that all of us who have been concerned about the issue will be absolutely delighted. I thank my noble friend personally because I am sure that she must have had a great deal to do with the change. It is great and I am very pleased. I am sure that Age Concern also will be absolutely delighted. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 3 [Savings credit]:
	[Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 not moved.]
	Clause 15 [Income and capital]:

Baroness Barker: moved Amendment No. 4:
	Page 9, line 11, at end insert "(but only for claimants who have not attained state pension age)"

Baroness Barker: My Lords, we have returned once again to the earnings issue, as we indicated we would at earlier stages. As noble Lords will be aware, we have consistently experienced difficulty in raising the issue. The Minister has been kind enough to share with us information on both the constraints under which she and the rest of us are working and the fact that the Treasury has yet to rule on the matter. Consequently, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I are shooting in the dark in addressing the issue.
	The amendment proposes that earnings for people over 65 should be discounted for purposes of the pension credit, and it seeks to make a couple of main points. We have had lengthy discussions on the Bill's detail, and we have also had many happy hours of hearing the Minister outline the cost of our proposals. In previous debates, she told us that Amendment No. 4 would cost between £200 million and £300 million. However, I should like to consider the proposal in terms of the wider policy perspective, which is important.
	Noble Lords may have read the very good report from the Performance and Innovation Unit, entitled Winning the Generation Game, which focuses primarily on the issue of early retirement by those aged between 55 and 65. However, many of the report's observations on the reasons why people retire or are made redundant early, and why they subsequently cause higher Treasury expenditure in the form of benefits, are equally relevant to those who are above the state pension age. As I have said, we on these Benches subscribe to the policy objective of keeping people working, economically active and involved. That policy has not only fiscal benefits for the Treasury, as people will be tax contributors, but other benefits in terms of health and well-being.
	So there is a cost which arises from people moving into the labour market, even though they may be older. The press cuttings I received this morning contained the wonderful case of Britain's oldest paper round boy. He is 90 and has never had a day off in his life—an example to us all.
	One other policy issue, as we have discussed previously, is that the rate at which people will be penalised under the pension credit is 40 per cent. I do not want to go back over the arguments in that regard. But people who, in work, have a tax rate of only 22 per cent may well be smart enough to figure out that if, under the pension credit, they would be worse off, it would be better for them to stop working.
	Underpinning the whole of the Bill is the intention that people should be encouraged to retire having planned for that retirement as best they can. This amendment contains two or three very good policy objectives and it was tabled with that in mind. We shall be interested to hear the response from the noble Baroness. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, again I understand the argument put forward by the noble Baroness in favour of matching the micro-economic costs of the concession—if that is what it is—against the macro-economic advantages of people working longer and the higher growth national product. This is an issue on which the Minister has been sympathetic throughout and it is a question of persuading the Treasury of the case for ensuring that people in part-time work do not suffer as a result of these arrangements.
	Amendment No. 6 seeks to make a specific proposal with regard to the extent to which there should be relief, and I hope that the Minister can comment on that. More particularly, I hope that she can announce a further favourable outcome of her deliberations following the one we had on the previous amendment.
	I raise one other point, and I apologise for not giving the Minister notice of it. It only came to my attention recently. The Preston case is concerned with access to pension schemes of part-time workers. The House will recall that the European Court of Justice ruled that the exclusion of part-time workers from an occupational scheme could amount to indirect sex discrimination. Is it possible that if we do not incorporate a provision of the kind embodied in the amendment this provision may also be held to be discriminatory to the extent that the number of part-time workers who are female is likely to be significantly higher than those who are male?
	I raise the matter at this stage because we do not want to find ourselves going through the same legal process, which has been elaborate and slow in relation to Preston, on this particular aspect.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, first, on the Preston point, I shall give the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, my best understanding and, if I am wrong or mislead him, I shall write to him.
	My understanding is that we have had the European judgment. What is now proposed is that the case will come back to the employment tribunals and be reconsidered by the chairman of the regional employment tribunals. I understand that that will take place in June or July. On the basis of that we will have a clearer position of what the law is. That is my understanding of where we are in relation to the Preston case. I cannot help the noble Lord beyond that. We do not yet know what the outcome will be.
	Amendment No. 4 proposes a total disregard on earnings of those over state pension age. Amendment No. 6 seeks to introduce a disregard of the earnings of all those entitled to the pension credit equivalent to 16 hours a week at the national minimum wage. We discussed the issue of earnings, and these proposals in particular, at some length on Report. No doubt the noble Lord's purpose is to establish the Government's position on the treatment of earnings.
	Amendment No. 4 is still subject to the same flaw I tried gently to point out on Report; that is, that somebody with very high earnings and no other savings would be exempt. The noble Baroness made it clear on Report that she was not seeking to reward those with high earnings, but the amendment does nothing to cap it, though I accept that mostly those with high earnings would have some other form of savings to rule them out.
	The noble Baroness quoted, and rightly so, Winning the Generation Game. We all believe it is a good thing for pensioners to work where they want to. The benefits for themselves, society as a whole and the economy are obvious. But I have to come back to the question of cost. The noble Baroness is right. It would cost in the region of £200 million if we accepted Amendment No. 4 and until the state pension age is equalised in 2020 some difficult equal treatment issues arise which I see no way to resolve. We go back to those same issues that we explored in earlier rounds. The cost of Amendment No. 6 would be £350 million. In part the increased costs are because the disregard would apply to all people aged 60 and over.
	Perhaps I can spell out our approach on the treatment of earnings. We want to promote active ageing. We believe that working age benefits, particularly the new working tax credit, are the best way to support and encourage those aged 60 to 64 in work or who want to work. That is where the figures escalate.
	In relation to pensions credit, those aged between 60 and 64 will have the existing MIG disregards applied to their earnings. Those aged over 65 will continue to have those disregards. We will also abolish the arbitrary remunerative work rule that excludes pensioners who work 16 hours a week or more for MIG. The earnings of those aged over 65, where they are relevant to the guarantee credit calculation, will be rewardable in the savings credit. That has been built into the £2 billion estimate.
	Let me expand on that point. It may not have had the full attention of your Lordships' House that it requires. I shall give two examples, and noble Lords will see from the names we chose that we had some fun trying to work out the appropriate examples. The push of what I am going to say is that pension credit will make pensioners who are in work better off than they currently are if they have modest earnings.
	The first example is that of a single pensioner working one day a week at a minimum wage earning £35 a week, say, at the local supermarket. He has the full basic state pension of £77 a week. He has no other income except the minimum wage of £35 at the supermarket. After taking into account the £5 earnings disregard, to which he is entitled and which will continue, his relevant earnings are £30. At the moment that £77 plus £30 takes him above the MIG level, so he sees no gains from working. But Harry is entitled to a savings credit. As his earnings would count as qualifying income, his savings credit is £11. In other words, even though we would not be disregarding earnings, they would come into account for qualifying income for pension credit purposes, if it was a modest income, and, as a result in the case I have given, Harry would be better off by £11 a week or £572 a year.
	The second example is that of a couple who have a basic retirement pension of £123 and earnings of £65 a week. Alfred is 68, married to Vera who is 65. Vera works as a cleaner for two days a week on the minimum wage earning £65 a week. They receive the full couple rate of retirement pension with no other income. They currently receive a £10 disregard on Vera's earnings but even after the disregard their current earnings take them above MIG reward and they would receive nothing. Under the pensions credit, their savings credit would be a further £9 a week or £468.
	I have given two examples. So though I am not able to address what your Lordships would like (a disregard of earnings) because of the cost range—according to which amendment one goes for, either £200 million, or £350 million, one-third of a billion pounds—it is the case that people will continue to have their current disregard. In addition, under pension credit on the examples I have given—I believe that both of them are fairly realistic—one person would be £11 a week better off and the other £9 a week better off.
	Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will not underestimate the benefit that comes from pension credit for earnings, even if I am not able to go as far as your Lordships would like. I am afraid that after reflection we have decided that the costs of both the amendments we are discussing are unacceptably high. None the less, the pension credit as designed still produces a useful and valuable extra award to those pensioners who increase their income by going out to work. I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Earl Russell: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, does she accept that while she is clearly right to take costs into account, one should attempt to take all costs into account? Am I correct in believing that the disregard was originally introduced as an incentive to people to work after retirement and that its withdrawal might have a disincentive effect? The Minister may say that she cannot quantify that, but if she is caught in a taxi and late for a Division would she admit that the fact that she cannot quantify the cost of getting to the House still means that it will be fairly considerable?

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, by now I know very well how much it costs to get to the House by various taxis from various points, having been for some time a Member of your Lordships' House. I take that point but I have no evidence to suggest that there is any distorting behavioural effect. People work for all kinds of reasons. What I would say—the noble Earl knows this perfectly well—is that the earnings disregards go back a long way. They are now £20 for a lone parent, £5 for a single person and £10 for a couple. That includes a pensioner couple. There are slightly different disregards for disabled people.
	In the past we have increased the disregards for lone parents where we have sought to encourage them into mini-jobs as a step into full-time work. It is clear that that step has behavioural implications and that it does affect and help lone parents to make the decision to try out mini-jobs before going back into the labour market full time. However, we have no evidence, as suggested by the noble Earl, that pensioners are affected by such a step. Obviously, pensioners would prefer to keep more of their income, but when we are talking of sums of a third of a billion pounds being allocated to better-off pensioners, that is a high price to pay for something for which there is no evidential base. I repeat that pension credit usefully improves the position of those who are currently at work. As a result I hope that more pensioners will be encouraged to earn the kind of modest earnings that your Lordships have in mind. I hope that with that additional explanation the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I suppose that it was always ambitious to hope for two good results in an afternoon. One of the many things that I have learnt during the passage of the Bill is that when the Minister heads off into a thicket of detail, one generally has an important point. I believe that we have an important point here. Apart from anything else, the common perception among older people and employers is that if they continue to work they will lose out on benefit. As we have said throughout the discussion on the Bill, the complexities into which the Minister has gone in some considerable detail to explain why that is not so are not easily translatable. Therefore, in future years when we consider the reports on the workings of the pension credit, I shall be interested to consider that matter to see whether any behavioural change, as the Minister put it, has occurred.
	This is a missed opportunity on the part of the Government to do something constructive in the field of active ageing. I believe that there are economic advantages in keeping older people in work but I understand the reasons why that is not being done at the moment. The matter may turn out to be an academic exercise because if all the news that has emerged in the past two weeks about occupational pensions turns out to be correct, none of us will be able to retire at all and we shall have to continue working until we drop. We are disappointed by the response and I hope that we can return to the issue in some future debate on pensions policy which I am sure will arise. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Higgins: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Page 9, line 22, at end insert—
	"( ) For the purposes of this Act neither a person's income nor his capital shall include any investment in or income arising from—
	(a) any plan which is a scheme of investment covered by the Personal Equity Plan Regulations 1989 (S.I. 1989/469); or
	(b) any plan which is in the form of an account covered by the Individual Savings Account Regulations 1998 (S.I. 1998/1870);
	or such other regulations as may be issued in substitution for, or extension to, or amendment of, such regulations."

Lord Higgins: My Lords, this amendment is concerned with PEPs and ISAs. We debated the matter at some length on 29th January. The Minister in replying to debates is always extraordinarily plausible and her words emerge in a smooth flow. However, I made the mistake of reading what she actually said and that has given me cause to retable the amendment.
	I think that we can all start from the proposition that saving is a good thing. That has been reflected in the policies of previous Chancellors and in the present Chancellor's policy on PEPs and ISAs which are specifically designed to encourage saving. It is therefore of some concern that the press suggested at the weekend that at present the sales of ISAs are some 40 per cent lower than a year ago. The Minister put forward the following arguments against the amendment in Committee. She said that,
	"we would have to find a way to distinguish the proportion of a person's fund made up of interest and capital growth and how we broke it down between the two".—[Official Report, 29/1/02; col. 142.]
	As I understand it, PEPs and ISAs are outwith the system which the Minister mentioned. The great advantage of PEPs and ISAs is that one does not have to distinguish between interest and capital growth as the Minister described. She then added that the suggested policy would have "complex incentive effects". However, complex incentive effects are the whole basis of PEPs and ISAs. The Minister then added that the suggested policy,
	"in addition to distorting the financial products market, it would also make it extremely difficult for financial advisers to give clear information and advice".
	Again, the whole basis of PEPs and ISAs is to alter the balance between various financial instruments and to encourage people to take out PEPs and ISAs. Therefore, the argument that was advanced is clearly not relevant. As regards whether it is possible for clear advice to be given in these circumstances, if one describes to one's financial adviser one's personal circumstances, as clearly one should, it is no more difficult for clear advice to be given in these circumstances than it is for it to be given as regards ISAs or PEPs generally.
	The Minister then added that if such an amendment were accepted,
	"the incentive to save in a pension for those who expected to be eligible for pension credit would be eroded".—[Official Report, 29/1/02; col. 143.]
	However, that overlooks the fact that PEPs and ISAs are effectively an alternative to a pension and, indeed, in many respects constitute a rather better form of pension provision. Therefore, the Minister's argument is not relevant.
	I examined the arguments that were put against the amendment and found all of them wanting except perhaps that of cost. Although PEPs and ISAs may result in the Exchequer incurring some additional cost, if they lead to an increase in saving the effect of that in macro-economic terms is broadly the same as a reduction in taxation. For all those reasons I considered that it was worthwhile to return to the matter. I believe that it was dealt with too superficially in Committee. I beg to move.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I also put my name to the amendment and I want to speak to it briefly. I believe that my noble friend dealt effectively with the arguments raised by the Minister in Committee. It appears that the rationale for ordinary taxpayers having a capital gains and income tax-free sum is very powerful. It has been an extremely successful way of encouraging people to save. Therefore, it is difficult for me to understand why people should suddenly move from being assessed on a capital gains and income tax-free basis to being assessed at the full rate when they cross the magic line at retirement.
	As my noble friend said, the Minister has prayed in aid complexity and distortion. But the fact is that, if we do not agree to the amendment, there will be a distorting effect in the sense that on reaching retirement a person should no longer have a PEP and ISA. Hitherto, those have been extremely effective ways of saving. I am not clear why a poor pensioner should be treated relatively worse in tax terms than an affluent pensioner or saver. I believe that my noble friend has made some important points and I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was intrigued to see this matter return. Although I may have been, as the noble Lord kindly put it, plausible, I am sorry that I was clearly not persuasive.
	I remind your Lordships that the provisions in Clause 15 abolish the rules that exclude from any help pensioners with £12,000 or more of savings. We are applying a notional rate of return of 10 per cent, which is half the present rate, on any capital sum over the first £6,000 which we shall disregard. That amount will be £10,000 for people in residential care and nursing homes. As I have told your Lordships on previous occasions, that means that 85 per cent of pensioners entitled to pension credit will see any income that they receive from their savings ignored entirely. I have also made the point that we estimate this treatment of savings to be approximately five times more generous than is currently the case.
	The fundamental difficulty with the proposed amendment is that the Bill, as drafted, already takes no account of actual income from PEPs and ISAs. It applies a notional tariff of 10 per cent to capital sums over £6,000. The result would be a massive shift into those assets—a point on which I want to enlarge in a moment. Therefore, in the longer run we calculate that the effect on pension saving could give rise to a cost of £1 billion a year. For those who expected to be eligible for pension credit, the incentive to save in an ISA would be far greater than the incentive to save in a pension because the pension would be taken into account and an ISA would be disregarded. People who chose to put all their money into an ISA would receive full pension credit, no matter how much they had saved.
	I believe that it is helpful if I give examples of how people would be affected. Therefore, perhaps I may illustrate in three different ways what would happen if a person saved £2,000 a year from the age of 50 to 65. That is not an unreasonable scenario for future pensioners on modest incomes. If that person had put his money into a stakeholder pension, he would benefit from tax relief on the contributions. In this example, the basic rate of tax has been assumed. If a return of 4.5 per cent was achieved over and above inflation and a 1 per cent annual charge was levied on the fund, the final fund after 15 years would be approximately £50,000 in constant prices. Obviously, in a stakeholder pension the return on the pension investment is not taxed. That means that a lump sum of £12,500 could be taken and a weekly pension of about £48 per week could be purchased with the rest of the fund.
	By saving in an ISA, the individual could expect to receive a rate of return on savings similar to that in the stakeholder pension example. There is also generally a fund management fee on equity-based ISAs. The main difference with stakeholder schemes is that tax relief is not given on the contributions, although the return is not taxed either. In this case, a final lump sum of approximately £39,000 would be generated.
	If a cash ISA were purchased, the return would probably be lower—say, 2 per cent above inflation—but there would be no management fee. That would generate a lump sum of around £35,000. As a result, the ISA would be somewhat less generous than the stakeholder pension. However, it would of course be free to be disposed of as one saw fit. Similarly, after 15 years of saving in a building society, one could expect approximately £32,000.
	Given those examples, I do not see how one could fail to skew the market. If a person put his money into a stakeholder pension and if his only other income was the basic state retirement pension, his total weekly income would be £137 and he would not be entitled to pension credit. The same sum of money turned into a stakeholder pension would take him out of the reach of pension credit. However, if he put that sum of money into an ISA, he would receive £23 credit in order to be brought up to the MIG level of £100. In addition, in a building society he would not be entitled to a guarantee credit but would be entitled to £2.20 in savings credit.
	Given those scenarios, what would your Lordships prefer? Of course noble Lords would not enter a stakeholder scheme; they would go into an ISA, which is considerably better even than a building society account for such purposes. In that case, I do not see how one could avoid skewing the market.
	Perhaps I may explain the matter in another way. Jessica at number 47 has placed £20,000 in an ISA, which the amendments have ignored. Alice next door at number 49 has placed the same amount in a building society. If all their circumstances were the same, under the amendment Alice would receive £14.20 a week less pension credit than Jessica. If I were Alice, I should transfer my money as quickly as possible to an ISA.
	I give another example of Jessica's sister, Sara. Sara has placed £100,000 over 15 years into PEPs and ISAs and then at the age of, say, 65 or 67 inherits a further lump sum of £60,000—perhaps because she has been left a terraced property which she has sold. If over the next five years she puts that money into ISAs, she could have £160,000 in capital—not an implausible scenario—and, if she had no other income, still be entitled under the amendment to maximum pension credit. That credit may well be paid for by a young man of 30 with an income of £7,000, £8,000 or £9,000 a year and no capital at all; none the less he would be a taxpayer.
	I ask your Lordships whether we want to see pensioners encouraged to put money into ISAs and PEPs not only in the period leading up to their retirement but subsequently as a shelter in order to maximise their entitlement. Pensioners could put £7,000 into an ISA each year for the rest of their lives every time additional capital came their way. By virtue of the amendment, a pensioner could have £150,000 or even more sheltered while other people with no such capital would have to cross-subsidise that through their taxes.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, of course, it is fair to say that while pensioners might have a capital sum, they could not draw any income from it. As soon as income is drawn from a PEP or ISA, it is taxed.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the point is that they have the capital. It is reasonable for us to expect that when one has created a savings entitlement over the years, one will draw it at the point of need. That is normally when one enters old age. We are not seeking through pension credit to give people the opportunity to pass on assets to their heirs. We are seeking to return to them the benefit of modest savings by imputing a notional income so that they are no longer no better off than if they had never saved and were simply drawing MIG. That is the purpose: to reward modest savings so that, compared with people who have not saved and would otherwise be drawing down MIG, people find that it is worth saving in a modest pension or annuity or the like. At present, they see no benefit.
	If one has a pension of £100 a month, at present one is no better off than if one had no such pension. One might just as well be on income support. In future, one will keep £60 of it. That seems to me to be decent and generous, and it chimes with people's instincts to help themselves. But the amendment seeks to do something totally different.
	Effectively the amendment produces a tax shelter which is a pension credit shelter for people who are not only approaching pension age but are beyond it. That could mean—certainly on paper; I do not say that it would happen in a wide number of cases—that people could have a lump sum of £100,000, £150,000 and so on which they could draw down in modest amounts if they wished. But effectively it would become an inheritance device at the expense of younger people—taxpayers and so on—who had no such savings but who were asked to cross-subsidise because the pensioners would still be drawing their maximum pension credit of £23 a week. If the pensioners have no claim on pension credit, it is a matter for them to decide whether they put their money into an ISA and so on. We are talking about those who seek to claim pension credit, but who also are able to protect seriously large sums of money and have that money taken into account when their eligibility for pension credit, which is financed by poorer taxpayers, is taken into account.
	I do not know whether the noble Lord considers my reply plausible or persuasive, but I hope that it is the second. In the light of that, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment because it is a device for skewing savings away from pensions into ISAs and for redistributing from poorer taxpayers to people who are better off in terms of the capital assets that they hold. I cannot believe that your Lordships want to support that.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as always, one is lost in admiration for anyone who can explain matters in such a way without reference to notes. As on the previous occasion, I believe that it will be worth reading carefully what the noble Baroness has said. Unless some amendments are passed in the other place, which seems unlikely, we in this House will not have a further opportunity to consider this matter. But it is helpful to have arguments, plausible or not, set out before the matter goes to another place for consideration. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 9, line 24, at end insert ", having regard to the yield to redemption available on long-dated (over fifteen years) United Kingdom government bonds"

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, this amendment takes me to an issue that was debated in Committee, the inter-relationship between deeming, where we have an assumed rate of interest, and the open-ended wording of the Bill as presently drafted. I understand the wish for simplicity and I quite understand the idea that there should be a deemed rate of earnings attributed to savings. I understand that and I see the advantages of it. However, reading the report of the Committee stage I am not sure that the noble Baroness understood what I was driving at.
	Perhaps I may take the example that is contained in the Government's pension credit paper of someone who has £10,000 of savings. The paper points out that the first £6,000 is at the nil rate and that the balance of £4,000 is at 10 per cent, giving an income of £400 on £10,000 which is 4 per cent. That 4 per cent compares with what the Financial Times today gives as the rate on long-dated UK government bonds over 15 years of between 4.64 per cent and 4.94 per cent.
	We are at the bottom of the interest rate cycle and we are offering a credit at 1 per cent below the current yield on long-dated government bonds. It may be considered fair to be offering someone with £10,000 that comparatively lower rate of interest, but what of the future? Clause 15(2), to which this amendment applies, gives the Secretary of State completely untrammelled powers about the way in which the yield on income shall be prescribed in the future.
	On several occasions during the passage of the Bill, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has warned the House of the dangers and temptations of such untrammelled powers. Therefore, this amendment requires the Secretary of State to have regard to rates of earnings available on the most comparable benchmark savings instruments. In her reply in Committee the Minister said:
	"the implication of this amendment would be to halve the assumed rate of interest on capital. Applying such a low return to capital, as the amendment would suggest, would distort incentives to save away from pensions into other forms of capital".—[Official Report, 29/1/02; col. 184.]
	That just is not true. The amendment asks the Secretary of State to "have regard to". Thus today should we be offering to someone who has saved £10,000 a savings credit 20 per cent below the long-dated gilt rate? It could be argued that that is not only unfair but also a potential disincentive. As for a future Secretary of State, should we not tie his or her hands, albeit lightly, by ensuring that he or she keeps in mind a benchmark by writing it on the face of the Bill and, therefore, has to consider that when he or she comes to set future rates for the savings credit. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, I support my noble friend who has set out the arguments clearly. I believe that it is sensible to have a requirement to have regard to what is happening in the real world, rather than to leave matters totally to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is coping heroically given the state of his voice. As your Lordships know, Clause 15 deals with our treatment of income and capital. This is a similar issue to that raised in the previous debate.
	We believe that Amendment No. 7 will disturb the balance in the personal finance market and skew it in ways that we find unacceptable. The amendment suggests that the assumed rate of return on capital should be set with reference to the yield on long-term UK government bonds. Frankly, it is a reference point that is irrelevant to the pensioners who will receive pension credit.
	In Committee we talked about that approach. As I said then, long-term bonds are traded every day so their value alters daily. However, the yield on long-term bonds is approximately 5 per cent and corporate bond funds will give one a gain of about 5 per cent at the moment if they are cautiously invested. Therefore, the implication of the amendment would be to halve the assumed rate of interest on capital.
	Applying such a low return to capital, as I said on the previous amendment, would distort incentives to save away from pensions to other forms of capital, particularly for those pensioners who are affluent enough and financially numerate enough to be able to enter the bond market. We have rehearsed this argument several times. We have consulted the FSA and it has pressed the importance of being able to give clear advice on the benefits of investment vehicles. To do that we need to have a rate of return on capital of at least 10 per cent above the £6,000 capital disregard.
	It may be helpful if I quote what the FSA said to us in its formal response on this issue:
	"Our over-riding concern is that we need to be in a position whereby we can give to those using decision trees unambiguous information/guidance about the purpose and effect of the Pension Credit from which they are able to work out its relevance to them in deciding whether to buy a stakeholder pension. The less they are able to do that, the more we will have to point out that they should take advice before deciding what to do. Of particular concern is whether an individual would be better-off using a different savings vehicle altogether.
	With a notional rate of 10%, we judge that we could make a reasonably positive statement in the decision trees to the effect that, for most people, most of the time, they would be better off saving through a stakeholder pension (provided that it was suitable in all other respects)."
	The FSA is the body that is best qualified to give advice about the investment market. It seems to me that, having asked for that advice, it is sensible that the Government should take it and use it to inform our policy making, which is what we have done. That is why the Bill as drafted maintains the balance in the personal finance market. The proposed amendment would upset that balance and skew savings away from pensions into that form of investment.
	As I said in Committee, the amendment would cost an additional £300 million. The cost assumes that the noble Lord would want to see us retain the £6,000 capital disregard so as to avoid placing increased intrusion on the vast majority of those entitled to pension credit who have small amounts of capital, a position that Age Concern has pressed on us.
	In addition to this substantial extra cost, I wonder whether the main Opposition Front Bench really wants to support an amendment at the cost of £300 million which appears to reward those who are financially able to enter the bond market in this way or to relate their savings in that way. In addition to that cost it would be impractical to link the assumed rate of return on capital to a price that changes every day. Pensioners would be required to report capital levels more frequently, imposing a new administrative burden on the pension service.
	As I have said, we investigated the possibility of using the actual interest from capital in the pension credit assessment, but we listened when Age Concern told us that pensioners did not want the trouble of recording actual income from capital and would prefer a notional rate of return instead.
	Therefore, I hope that I have persuaded the noble Lord that the Government are not able to move in the direction that he seeks. It would severely and substantially undermine the purpose of this amendment. Alternatively, it would cause us to revisit the commitment we made to Age Concern in terms of the £6,000 figure. I hope that with that explanation the noble Lord—I am sure that he does not think it at all plausible, but I suspect that we shall not have a meeting of minds on the matter—will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, the Minister has repeated what she said in Committee. I did not find it convincing then. What we are seeking is that when the Minister comes to set the rate at which the pensions saving credit will be set in the future, he or she should have regard to what is available in the real world. At the moment at £10,000 someone is worse off. He will get a lower rate of imputed pension credit than he would if he had a comparable investment in long-dated Government bonds. That seems to me a strange way of incentivising people to save.
	However, we have been around this course enough times. I do not think that the Minister has quite understood what I am driving at. Equally, I do not think that we will get any further today. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 17 [Other interpretation provisions]:
	[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
	Clause 19 [Regulations and orders]:

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: moved Amendment No. 9:
	Page 13, line 30, at end insert "or
	( ) section 15(1)(e), (f) or (j), (2), (3), (4) or (6),"

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I return to the House with an amendment that I promised at an earlier stage. Amendment No. 9 adds the powers provided for within Clause 15 to the list in Clause 19 that will require the affirmative procedure to be followed in both Houses of Parliament in order for the first regulations or orders to be made.
	I could go on, but perhaps I do not need to. I have met the undertaking that I gave to the House. I hope that your Lordships will be delighted. I beg to move.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for fulfilling the undertaking which she previously gave. It reflects the constructive attitude which she has displayed from the Government Front Bench throughout our deliberations on this Bill. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all the House in thanking her for the way in which she has dealt with the various amendments. Together with my noble friends on my side of the House who have obviously pursued these matters, we think that the Bill is better than it was when it started; unfortunately, it is not quite as good as it could be.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I briefly interject to thank the Minister and both the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, who throughout their amendments and in discussions have fought to make what I still think is a very complex Bill far more comprehensible. I believe that the debates that we have had in this House will stand other people in good stead when they come to interpret and to enact the Bill.
	I thank the Minister very much. It must have been very tedious for her at times to give the lengthy explanations that some of us required to get through the Bill. It has been very much appreciated.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	An amendment (privilege) made.

Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. We, in this House, have now departed from the old convention of making long speeches at this stage of a Bill. However, perhaps I may make a couple of points. First, I should like to thank your Lordships, not just my noble friend Lady Turner, but the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, as well as our gadfly from the Back-Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the way that they have pressed their amendments to probe the Government's views, and for the extent to which it has allowed us an opportunity, if not to amend the Bill, at least to expose it to proper scrutiny.
	As this is the first House that is scrutinising the Bill, in other words, we are not receiving it from another place, that job of scrutiny is even more important than it would otherwise be. I welcome that. I thank your Lordships for that and as usual for the extraordinarily courteous and good-humoured way in which amendments have been pursued.
	There is one thing that I cannot resist saying. I was quite intrigued during the course of some of the amendments, although they were not actually moved to a vote. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would like to know that so far the bill for his amendments—unless he has had any last minute thoughts—is £2.95 billion. That is leaving aside the £17.5 billion that he would have spent on a 40 per cent take up of all benefits. But I think that that was possibly a mistake. So if we overcome the mistake of the £17.5 billion, he has staked out a position for the Opposition Front Bench of additional expenditure of £2.95 billion. That, give or take a bit, more or less doubles the cost of pension credit, but let not some noughts stand in the way between friends on Front Benches.
	That aside, I am very pleased to ask your Lordships' House to accept that the Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Hollis.)

Lord Higgins: My Lords, it would be ungracious of me to say that the only arguments I found convincing from the other side have been those of cost, which is why we have not voted for the rather modest amendments which the Minister has just described.
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Wind Energy

Lord Williams of Elvel: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their decision to allow a wind farm development at Cefn Croes in mid-Wales and their intention to unblock 100 renewable energy projects in England and Wales which have been refused planning permission.
	My Lords, I am sorry that the Minister is not present, but since I have sent him a copy of my draft speech he is not missing much.
	First of all, I must declare an interest as a Vice-President of the Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales. But I make no excuse for raising this matter in this House. It is not just a Welsh question. I wish it were; and I shall argue that future such cases should be. But under arrangements following the Electricity Act 1989, a generating station that crosses the threshold of 50 megawatts installed capacity falls for decision by the DTI in London. Since it is the first case in Wales—and only the second if England is included—of a wind-powered station crossing this threshold, the procedures and the outcome will set a precedent for all future such applications, not just in Wales but in England as well.
	The application which we are discussing is for 39 turbines, each twice the height of Nelson's Column, each with an installed capacity of 1.5 megawatts, to be located on the Cambrian mountains in mid-Wales. The land in question technically is owned by the Forestry Commission but is vested in the National Assembly for Wales. The area is one of great beauty and indeed was designated as a national park in the 1970s, but that was never confirmed.
	This application was duly submitted to the Ceredigion County Council, and was referred to its planning officer for study. The officer in question did a thorough job. In fact, the experts in this field say that his 128-page report is the most detailed and comprehensive they have ever seen. He rightly took the advice of the Countryside Council for Wales, the statutory body with a specific remit to give advice on matters affecting the Welsh countryside. Both the CCW and the planning officer were clear on the matter. The application was, in their word, "inappropriate", and should be rejected.
	Ceredigion County Council, in a very brief session, then proceeded to ignore that advice and to approve the application. No recognisable planning reason was given. Nor has any particular reason since been discovered, although allegations have surfaced in the local press of—how shall I put it?—undue activity on the part of some members of Plaid Cymru.
	Be that as it may, the matter then went to the National Assembly, which found itself in a difficult position. For a start, it was the owner of the land; but it was also the properly elected guardian of the landscape. Then its agent, Forest Enterprise, had manifestly ignored the obligation imposed by Parliament on its parent, the Forestry Commission, to strike a balance between its activities and the landscape. The National Assembly therefore took the view, in the words of the First Minister, that,
	"if the council grants permission it is a matter for Brian Wilson as the relevant minister in the DTI, not for us. We"—
	he said,—
	"collate the information."
	Much to general consternation, without further ado, on 10th December 2001, the Minister announced that he, too, was ignoring the CCW's advice and would give the go-ahead to the project without public inquiry. In fact, the Department of Trade and Industry press release of that day was, as seems usual nowadays, both inaccurate and misleading.
	I shall not waste your Lordships' time by rehearsing all of the inaccuracies, irritating though they are. I want to concentrate on one particular misleading number. The release states that Cefn Croes will result in savings of 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions. If that means, in the Kyoto sense, that our CO 2 emissions will be reduced by that amount, the figure cannot possibly be sustained. In fact, it is doubtful whether Cefn Croes will result in any savings at all, in the Kyoto sense. Your Lordships should bear in mind that even the Kyoto agenda has been seriously challenged by academics even in the report issued today.
	The Scots, who seem to be wiser than us—or perhaps more honest—have accepted that the intention was that renewables-generated electricity would replace at least some conventionally generated electricity, but that with increased demand for energy that has not been and remains unlikely to be the case. They said that the supply companies buy green electricity while maintaining generation from conventional power stations. It is expected that all sources of energy will be taken up to meet increased demand.
	But that is not the end of the matter. Given the intermittent nature of wind power, conventional back-up stations must always be on standby with boilers kept at levels that allow them to be brought on-line at short notice. So not only will no conventional power station be decommissioned as a consequence of Cefn Croes or any other such installation, conventional power capacity will actually have to increase to provide the necessary stand-by as demand increases, as wind can meet that demand only intermittently. Bang goes any possible saving on CO2 emissions.
	Leaving aside the inaccuracies and false claims, the DTI statement makes one important point. Referring to the new rules, the Minister said that they would make the achievement of our sustainability goals compatible with respect for the landscape and local community. At last, the landscape appears as a factor in the decision. The Minister would be wise not to sneer at those whose function it is to argue in favour of the landscape. He would also be wise to refrain from asserting that conservation bodies are against renewable energy projects if they ever come near them. All the groups that have protested most vigorously about Cefn Croes are, as far as I know, perfectly content with almost all the renewables described in the Perfomance and Innovation Unit report: biomass, combined heat and power, photovoltaics, wave and tidal power—even offshore wind, if it is really offshore. Frankly, ministerial sneering is only a cover for lack of serious argument.
	So, to use the Minister's words, how is the "landscape" to be "respected"? On current evidence, certainly not by the DTI. After all, the road from Presteigne in the east to Aberystwyth in the west was chosen by the AA as one of the most scenically beautiful roads in the United Kingdom. If the Cefn Croes project goes ahead, instead of beautiful landscape there will be something resembling an industrial park. Is that what is known as respect for the landscape?
	The Cambrian mountains are to Wales what the South Downs are to south-east England. The day that the Minister approves an application for 39 turbines, each twice the height of Nelson's Column, on the South Downs is the day when I will take my hat off to him and admit that he is applying his policy fairly across the United Kingdom. In the meantime—and I suspect that it may be quite a long meantime—he should follow what is after all only the logic of devolution. It is quite wrong for Whitehall bureaucrats to be allowed to determine the future face of the Welsh landscape. Let the National Assembly decide. In the interval, for goodness sake let us have some respect. At the very least, it would be quite wrong to march ahead without a public inquiry. Common decency demands no less.

Lord Lloyd-Webber: My Lords, I should first like to make clear that my interest in this Question has nothing to with the fact that I have Lloyd in my name. The non-English bit of me is Scottish.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has raised a most timely issue. I know a tiny bit about sustainable energy because I was involved in a campaign to prevent the construction of a wind farm in Tipperary in southern Ireland, where I have the good fortune to own a house. The wind farm was obviously to be sited on a mountain and, like the Welsh plan that we are discussing, would have been a complete visual environmental catastrophe. Research produced much the same results as did that of the noble Lord. Indeed, it was suggested that it would take 10 years for that wind farm to compensate for the harmful emissions caused by the lorries and other conventional means involved in its construction, let alone in its maintenance. That is not surprising when we consider that the Welsh turbines will replace barely 1 per cent of the nuclear power station at Anglesey.
	Denmark, so far the most active supporter of wind programmes, has called a halt to projects because the turbines now have to be financed by a levy on conventional electricity. Indeed Denmark had to provide a back-up for those intermittent turbines by building a power line to obtain hydroelectric power—interestingly—from Norway. Electricity in Denmark is priced at 13p a unit, compared to 7p to 8p in Britain. It is therefore clear that wind farms are at best questionable contributors to sustainable energy.
	Britain is becoming an increasingly unpleasant place to live. Americans constantly point out that London is six times less safe to visit than Manhattan. We know that it will be difficult for politicians from both sides of the House to reverse the problems so that the cities that have been our most attractive places are again perceived to be desirable places to visit, or indeed for we Brits to enjoy. So it is vital, not just in order to attract tourists but for the good of all of us, that our greatest countryside assets are wrecked only if absolutely necessary.
	The Welsh mountains are among these islands' greatest natural assets. They are clearly a great tourist attraction as well as a great tonic to the spirit of every Member of the House who goes there. I reiterate that we have an absolute duty to protect our countryside, especially in the rare instances where it is visually unspoiled. A public inquiry in this case is absolutely necessary.
	However, equally important is that the efficiency or otherwise of wind farms and all forms of energy production is properly and publicly discussed. For instance, if wind farms really work, should they not be sited off-shore near existing, often ageing, nuclear power stations where the infrastructure to carry the electricity to the national grid already exists? I cannot help but observe that the present Government—like those before them, I fear—seem to have shown little lead in reducing electricity consumption in, say, schools, hospitals or government buildings, for that matter. How can it be that the Energy Saving Trust is barely funded?
	Finally, as far as I can discover, little government-funded research has been conducted into producing a cell that stores electricity from an intermittent source such as a wind farm if it over-produces. An across-the-board policy on energy saving is therefore even more important. The point about the electricity cell that has not been developed suggests to me that the recent support for massive wind farms has not been completely thought through.
	As I said, the whole question of energy needs to be publicly and properly discussed. It would be all too easy to make a cheap spin-doctor's speech about wind farms versus nuclear electric production that would mislead and bamboozle. The public need to know the facts. Until then, it would be a disgrace if further wind farms were permitted anywhere in the British Isles. In this case, a public inquiry is the least that we can expect.

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for securing this debate on a very important subject. Wales has many jewels in its crown—music, literature, language—but the greatest of all Wales's qualities and the one that moves the human spirit more than any other is, without doubt, its landscape. Ask anyone who visits Wales what they remember about the visit, and—sometimes mentioning the rain as they pass—they will speak about the beautiful landscape that they have seen all over Wales. One of the finest parts of the Welsh landscape is the wild, exposed and unguarded area in which the proposed wind farm would be situated.
	In Wales, we believe that we should be empowered to decide whether we are to have such a scar on the landscape as is proposed. We do not understand why such matters have been reserved to a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry. We have a responsible Assembly that is more than capable of deciding such issues. We suggest to the Government that this issue is just an example—an important one—of a matter from which such reservation should be removed. What should the Welsh Assembly guard, if it cannot guard the landscape that is the lifeblood of the Welsh countryside?
	The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has already spoken about the size of the towers. Simon Jenkins gave a graphic—and not, in my view, exaggerated—description of them in The Times a few days ago. He described them as being,
	"like a Golgotha of gibbets".
	We already have our share of wind turbines in mid-Wales. I need go only a few miles from my home in rural Montgomeryshire. My noble friend Lord Hooson has wind turbines within a shorter distance of his home in Llanidloes. We have taken our share in mid-Wales—in Montgomeryshire and Ceredigion—of the renewable energy that should be assigned to our area.
	The Government have followed a process that has been hurtful and insulting to the people of Wales. The Department of Trade and Industry has shown itself to be a department that hears but does not listen. It has shown itself to be bossy, with all the advantages of distance between the affected site and the office in London. If the matter were to be decided by Ministers in the Welsh Assembly, with the support of the Assembly, they would have been to the site. It would be helpful if the Minister who will reply to this debate could tell us whether he does so on the basis of knowledge gained from visiting the site.
	It would also be helpful to know whether the Minister who made the decision, Brian Wilson, has taken the trouble to visit the site in Cardiganshire. We must not be told that because Mr Wilson—a nice man, for whom I have considerable respect—represents a wild and rural constituency on the west coast of Scotland, it is enough for him to say that he understands such areas. Ceredigion is different from the highlands and islands of Scotland. Above all, the landscape is different, because of its dramatic height, its unguarded aspect and its importance as part of the sculpture of Wales.
	I reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, about the rejection of advice. Why has Mr Wilson rejected the advice in the detailed report from the planning officer for Ceredigion? When I was a Member of the other place, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs held an inquiry into planning in Wales. Ceredigion council came out of it with no glory whatsoever: it has a poor record of dealing with planning issues. I am afraid that, in cases in which self-interest plays any part, it there plays too great a part. If, as would have been logical, Ceredigion council had done us the honour of providing some reasons for rejecting the advice of its planning officer, it might be more difficult to make the case that we make this evening. However, the council has given no reasons. I am told that the whole meeting took something like half an hour, and no rationale for the decision was given at the end.
	The Countryside Council for Wales is the statutory adviser on the landscape. Yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, has already reminded the House, the firm views of the statutory adviser on the landscape on the issue were rejected. The Countryside Council for Wales is not a politician; coming from it, the term "inappropriate" is fairly strong. The Campaign for the Protection of Rural Wales—of which the noble Lord is vice-chairman—represents members in Wales who are prepared to speak out about the Welsh countryside. There has been a good deal of research into the opinion of local people in Ceredigion and the surrounding communities of mid-Wales, and it is clear that there is a majority that opposes what is proposed.
	Why are the Government, apparently, determined to go ahead with the proposal? I fear that it is because wind energy has become a shibboleth. The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, has already told us that, in Denmark, wind energy has been rejected as uneconomic. There was a time when, if we discussed wind energy in mid-Wales, we were told that the Danes were the business. We were told that the Danes produced all the technology and, if we did as they did, we would have a good product, providing plenty of energy and value for money. I am not aware that the Danes have fallen behind the game on this matter; simply, they have discovered that it just does not pay.
	The Government will be able to proceed on the matter with conviction—if ever—only if the people of Wales, individually and through their representatives, can attend the public inquiry that should take place. Had the council decided to reject the application, as most people expected, there would have been an inquiry. The Minister has the power to order a public inquiry. A public inquiry would not be unduly long. It would consider mainly the effect of the proposal on the landscape. The Government should do the decent thing and ensure that such an inquiry takes place, so that the matter can be considered on its merits and discussed by the people with the greatest interest in it.

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, on asking this important Unstarred Question tonight. I use the word "important" advisedly, because I am sure that the Minister will have noted that there is a speaker from every group in the House taking part in our mini-debate, with the possible intriguing absence of the Green Party. It is almost exactly five years since I had the pleasure of leading a debate on the subject of wind energy in this House. Although that front has been relatively quiet since then, it would appear that the lull is about to be dramatically broken, following the announcement made by the Minister shortly before Christmas.
	The decision to proceed with Cefn Croes, bypassing a public inquiry in the process, and unlock a substantial number of renewable energy projects is perhaps a ministerial manifestation of what Simon Jenkins, in a splendid phrase, recently described as the "craze for wind". This has happened despite the fact, as we have just been told, that the world leader, Denmark, has recently put up the shutters on further development, simply because it is not cost-effective. It would be a great relief if the Minister were able to signal tonight that the Government would again sympathetically consider holding a public inquiry into the Cefn Croes project.
	The original refusal was prompted by the decision of Ceredigion County Council, in the first instance, and the unsatisfactory nature of the Assembly's powers, in the second. Those of us who, three years ago, supported devolution have a right to expect that the people of Wales should be better served by governmental process than they have been in this case. It seems remarkable that such a major project should hang on the decision of a county council that discussed the matter only in a somewhat perfunctory way and then ignored the recommendation of its planning officer, rather than on a decision made by the National Assembly for Wales, whose input has been necessarily minimal, because of the current constitutional arrangements. Any ambiguities and irrationalities in the Assembly's role should be ironed out before another three years have passed.
	Few query the important part that wind energy can play in meeting our non-fossil fuel obligations. It is heartening to see the major efforts being made to plan for offshore farms. However, on land it could result in the erection of over 3,000 large turbines, one-third of them in Wales. Even now there are some 362 smaller ones, 200 of which can be seen from the summit of Plynlimon alone. Only the southern aspect is free of them. After this decision, that aspect will be closed off as well.
	After Cefn Croes, what will come next? Already there are plans for 165 400-foot turbines on the Camddwr estate near Strata Florida. It may be of some consolation to learn that that project will straddle the boundaries between Ceredigion and Powys. Perhaps Powys will act with more responsibility than Ceredigion in recommending a public inquiry.
	People will say—indeed, they do say—that there is more wind in the west. To a very limited degree, and bearing in mind that the turbines function for only one-third of the time, that is the case. However, it is more a case of, "Out of sight, out of mind". There is no question about that. If anyone should query that assumption, they should think on this. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, pointed out, imagine a proposal, say, for a wind farm only half the size of Cefn Croes on the South Downs, on the Chilterns or—I can see the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd-Webber, to whom we have listened with great interest, stirring uneasily in his place—even on Watership Down itself. There would be an instant cry from all quarters, the noise of which would reach Kyoto and back again.
	Let us not for one instant ignore the powerful and understandable economic reasons which no doubt bore heavily on the minds of those who chose to recommend dispensing with a public inquiry. Those reasons have to be taken into consideration. For small farmers on whose land turbines might be sited, the rental would offer quite literally a lifeline after a decade of catastrophic losses. We can all sympathise with that and thus perhaps understand the readiness of some political parties locally to support willy-nilly any project, without bothering too much with a rational evaluation. But such an emotive response does not make it right and fails to protect the interests of generations to come. That is precisely what a public inquiry would set out to do and why it is essential to hold one on the Cefn Croes project.
	Over the years, many have said to me the equivalent of, "We must have been crazy, all those years ago, to have allowed electricity distribution to be put above ground. Those grim pylons mutilating the landscape . . .". Do not let us make the same mistake again in an effort to jump on to a topical bandwagon which seems to be developing a momentum all its own.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I too should like to say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for introducing this debate on such an important and extremely urgent matter. As noble Lords have already heard, it raises some very disturbing and far-reaching questions about environmental priorities and planning procedures. I declare an indirect interest as past president of the Council for the Protection of Rural England in Herefordshire and Shropshire. We have already repulsed two attempts to install wind turbines in our part of the world and we look anxiously across the border with great sympathy for our Welsh neighbours.
	Your Lordships will recall the sense of outrage felt in the whole civilised world when the Taliban government in Afghanistan, then seemingly impregnable and unassailable, wantonly destroyed the great Buddhist statues which had stood for centuries; an act of gross vandalism carried out in the name of fanatical, blinkered and bigoted religion. How could such a group of extremists set out to destroy, with mortars and dynamite, the timeless heritage of their nation?
	Yet that act was not wholly dissimilar to what has been going on for some time in some of our most beautiful landscapes which form a part of our timeless heritage, especially in mid-Wales—now threatened in an extremely damaging form at Cefn Croes, not to mention the even worse horrors of the plan recently revealed by the Camddwr Trust, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has just referred. In the interests of a narrow-minded, misguided, blinkered obsession with onshore wind generation, an environmental figleaf to conceal the absence of any more rational and enlightened policies, we are in danger of ruining the remaining tracts of wild, beautiful upland country in mid-Wales—that great sweep of the Cambrian mountains from the southern fringes of Snowdonia to the Brecon Beacons. As noble Lords have already heard, it is land designated some 30 years ago by the Countryside Commission as being of national park quality, although alas that designation was not confirmed. Although the government of the day did not contest the assessment that the area's natural beauty, landscape and biodiversity were important, they asked that the area be conserved "in other ways". But that meant precisely nothing and the way remained open for applications for wind power stations which would have been automatically ruled out of order in a national park.
	I declare another interest in that I am as enthusiastic as anyone about conserving the environment. I am deeply concerned about greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. I campaign as vigorously as I can for energy conservation, for a reduction in food miles, for people to get out of their cars and on to public transport, for the greening of the farming industry and the growing of energy crops, and for greatly increased research into clean energy generation, in particular solar power and the exploitation of tidal, marine and geothermal energy. But I am resolutely opposed to the myopic, cynical, short-term reliance on the so-called proven technology of onshore wind, with its hideous despoliation of the landscape, its invasion by monstrous turbines of a totally alien industrial character, with their maddening noise and relentlessly disturbing movement.
	The threatened installation at Cefn Croes would ruin the only remaining unspoilt view to the south from Plynlimon. It would damage irreparably the landscape quality of the magnificent road from Aberystwyth to the Elan Valley—and all in the interests of generating, on average, not the 55 megawatts that is claimed, but rather in practice a pitiful 17.5 megawatts, intermittently and unreliably, amounting to 0.023 per cent of UK power generation.
	That is not all. The appalling Camddwr project envisages 165 turbines, almost 400 feet tall, over an area eight miles by six in the glorious country between Strata Florida and Llyn Brianne, dominating both sides of the magnificent mountain road from Tregaron to Abergwesyn. Each of the proposed turbines will be significantly taller even than the tip of the flagpole on the Victoria Tower. It beggars belief and yet one cannot be sure that it will not actually happen, such is the confusion and muddle over the planning process, as other speakers have so eloquently explained to the House in the course of our debate.
	The story of Cefn Croes is a sad one. The noble Lord, Lord Williams, has recounted it. The Countryside Council for Wales advised against the project, but did not ask for a public inquiry because it had been advised that it could only advise. The Welsh Assembly did not ask for an inquiry because it claimed that it could not do so if the Countryside Council for Wales had not done so. As we have heard, this wretched muddle leaves the decision with the DTI, which has received over 600 letters objecting to Cefn Croes and acknowledges a very strong balance of local opinion against the project.
	We need to press the Minister to justify the extraordinary statement made by Mr Brian Wilson, the Minister in another place, to the effect that in the light of this objection, so widely expressed by so many responsible bodies and so many local people, "he is minded to approve the scheme".
	The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, has already pointed out that it is easy to understand the enthusiasm of poor farmers who can generate valuable income by allowing turbines on their land. Presently it looks like untold wealth in comparison with the pitiful return to be had from farming itself. There are places where cash for turbines has made a real difference to poor people. But that is not the case here. The land on which Cefn Croes would be built is at present under the control of public land users answerable to the Welsh Assembly. There is no conceivable reason why the land should be used in this way.
	The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, when he was a Minister at the old DETR, on at least two occasions in your Lordships' House has assured me in absolutely unambiguous terms that the Government had no intention of interfering with or altering the planning process, the integrity of which was to be maintained at all times. Talk of unlocking 100 renewable energy projects seems sinister. Will the Minister give a clear assurance that there will continue to be absolute respect for the planning process? Will he acknowledge the value of the landscape and confirm the Government's belief that it is right to protect and preserve the God-given, inspiring beauty of mid-Wales from the new threats that hang so heavily over it?

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join with the words of appreciation extended to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel, who has done the House and the country a considerable service. I am concerned not so much with the situation in Wales but generally and with the wider implications. Above all, we must ask the Government how much they value the British landscape.
	The other day, there were Questions in the House about leisure and tourism. The Government are giving considerable and welcome support to tourism. The people who own the land on which a turbine may be erected might make a little money but their neighbours will not make much from the inducement to tourists to visit affected areas.
	About 15 years ago, I took part in a conference on energy in Europe. My eyebrows were raised when a Dutch academic proclaimed that Britain could be self-sufficient on wind energy. My mathematics are not terribly good but on the back of an envelope I calculated and said that it would mean a windmill every 100 yards around the British coast—and another windmill on every bit of higher or exposed land. South-east England would not be affected so much as the North, Wales or Scotland—but we may depend more on tourism. At least we do not price ourselves out of the market, as London does.
	I also examined the contribution that wind energy could make. I do not think that the country fully appreciates that wind energy is not quite so productive as some people imagine. One proposed wind farm in Yorkshire—which in my view would be a pollutant of a significant part of my county—would produce in one year as much as a Drax power station could produce in six days. Drax is the cleanest of our power stations, long since fitted with flue-gas desulphurisation.
	I accept that we must be concerned about energy. I have long been involved in and eager to see much greater and more intensive use of energy conservation. I suggest an alternative to wind farms that might buy the time that the Government need to achieve more energy conservation and to make public transport more attractive—leading to far less pollution from motor vehicles, which is probably the greatest of our problems.
	There are hundreds of closed collieries in this country. At many of them can be found methane—a gas 20 times more poisonous than the carbon and sulphur emissions from the power stations that cause so much anxiety. That methane is leaking slowly out in the atmosphere. It can be tapped. A few months ago, I visited one such establishment five miles from my home. It will provide as much electricity as some large wind farms. Such operations are not intrusive, with noise occurring only 50 yards or so around the small plant. The gas is available free of charge. It should be taken for health reasons. If there were a rapid expansion of methane from closed collieries, it would be unnecessary to incur the extravagance of windmills, which despoil the landscape.
	The Government originally took the view that Europe would not be in favour but the European Union has made it clear that the issue is available for national determination. Nothing from Europe would prevent Britain from encouraging that development.
	The effect of wind farms on tourism would be serious. They would cause lasting devastation to the landscape and arouse the loathing and detestation of most local residents.
	Do the Government maintain the view that there should be environment impact assessments of all such projects? Will my noble friend the Minister give an assurance that there will be a thorough and proper environmental impact assessment of all major wind farm proposals—including retrospectively those in Wales?
	During the passage of one industry Act I raised the question of opencast mining. Coalfield areas were often hostile to opencast mining because it caused nuisance, dirt and disturbance—often for long periods. Sometimes, coalfield areas were prepared to accept an opencast project if it meant that degradation and squalor would be transformed into something decent. In most cases, opencast mining caused a great deal of grief, horror and local disturbance.
	Such projects went ahead because in those days the government twisted the arms of local authorities to disregard the hostility of local electors in the so-called national interest. During the passage of the Utilities Bill 2000, I asked several times for an assurance that the Government would not twist the arms of planning authorities in respect of applications for wind power development. I was given that assurance. I hope that it still stands. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to that point and to the others that have properly been made.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for tabling this Unstarred Question. I confess that I am not absolutely convinced by the noble Lord's technical argument about the need to keep fossil fuel power stations running online to cover shortfalls in wind-powered generation. Electricity demand can be forecast. So can wind availability.
	My noble friend Lord Lloyd-Webber questioned whether wind farms should be sighted near derelict nuclear power stations. I visited an offshore wind farm at Blyth, right next to a disused thermal power station. One difficulty with offshore wind farms is cost—but on the day I visited there was certainly not a problem with wind availability. I was impressed with that development, which did not seem unduly intrusive.
	Why is wind farm development a matter for Whitehall when it should be for the people of Wales and the Welsh Assembly? Assembly Members have local knowledge. I have none at all about the beautiful roads in the middle of Wales. I accept that Westminster needs to specify overall emissions and renewables policy—especially to keep this country in line with international obligations. It may be necessary to put in place certain targets for the devolved assemblies but the actual locations of such power stations and the conditions under which they operate ought to be a matter for the Welsh Assembly. I am not absolutely convinced either of the merits of a public inquiry. One has only to remember the cost of the Heathrow Terminal 5 inquiry.
	The noble Lord's Unstarred Question refers also to planning, which seems an impediment to renewable schemes. A good example is energy crops and short-rotation coppice schemes. This involves growing wood, which grows very quickly on what was formerly agricultural land, to be used in small power stations. Of course, it is carbon neutral, but there is great concern about pollution during the planning process by way of emissions, especially as regards heavy metals. If the land is currently being used for producing food, what worries me is the fact that the heavy metals must already be getting into the food chain. Surely it would be much better if those heavy metals were entering the short rotation coppice, which is then burnt in a power station and widely distributed thereafter. I sometimes wonder whether good, renewable projects are stifled by our long-winded planning process.
	In conclusion, I do not support Nimbyism, but I do agree with noble Lords who have suggested that this should be a matter for the Welsh Assembly.

Lord Moran: My Lords, I, too, should like very much to thank the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for raising this important matter, and for the work that he has accomplished in driving forward the work of CPRW. I must declare an interest in that I live in mid-Wales and am a member of that campaign group.
	We are an overcrowded, over-populated island, but we still have some surviving fragments of wild country of which the Cambrian mountains is one example. I often drive through them on my way to meetings of the Welsh Salmon and Trout Angling Association, of which I have the honour to be president. It would be unforgivable to ruin these surviving fragments.
	One of Wales's great assets is her incomparable landscape. Not long ago, an old American friend came to stay with us. One day he asked, "Do you take all this for granted?" Perhaps we do. The case of Cefn Croes is fundamentally a landscape issue. Mid-Wales is now threatened by the proliferation of increasingly enormous and obtrusive industrial structures. Those proposed for Cefn Croes are huge. I viewed Nelson's Column this afternoon and thought what twice that height would mean, repeated 39 times. Frankly, I was appalled.
	Wind power produces only trivial amounts of power—a minute fraction of what is produced by a conventional power station. When the wind drops, it produces none at all; and, left alone, it would be quite uneconomic. The developers are in it for the subsidy; and the Government are providing massive subsidy. The non-fossil fuel obligation guarantees premium price sales for 15 years. We are phasing out subsidies to hard-pressed farmers, yet here we are planning to give a substantial subsidy to Enron, the chiefs of which company are now facing gaol in the United States. Surely Enron Europe is in receivership. I do not honestly know what we are doing. We are paying them to do untold damage to the Welsh countryside. Is that remotely sensible?
	In December I read the press statement made by the Minister, Mr Brian Wilson, in which he said:
	"The launch of these windfarms should mark the start of a new period of expansion for wind energy in this country . . . Wales is blessed with some of the finest energy rich natural sources in the world. I am confident that Government, investors and the local community will work together to ensure that these assets are utilised to help reduce the effects of climate change".
	Speaking specifically on Cefn Croes, the Minister said:
	"This development will put Wales right at the forefront of the renewables expansion which I am anxious to promote throughout the UK".
	Then, as several speakers have mentioned, he announced that he would shortly be introducing the,
	"new rules which will relocate renewable energy projects which have been proposed under the non fossil fuel obligation but have failed to obtain planning permission".
	That seems to me to be immensely worrying. When the Minister responds to the debate, I hope that he will give the House some reassurance in that respect. Mr Wilson went on to say that the new rules will unlock about "100 renewable energy projects", which is also deeply worrying.
	But what of the future? We have already been told by several speakers that the next development in the pipeline—the one proposed near Strata Florida in Wales—will be the biggest turbine cluster in Europe. It will comprise 165 turbines, each measuring up to 400 feet in height. If that is to come to fruition by overriding the planning process, it seems to me to be a matter about which we should be extremely concerned. I am sorry that the reaction by Welsh authorities has not been stronger.
	Several noble Lords mentioned the bizarre decision taken by the Ceredigion council after reading the extremely valuable report produced by its planning officers. After the short debate the councillors congratulated the officers on the detail and quality of their report. One of the councillors said that he agreed with 99.9 per cent of it, apart from the recommendation! Another, councillor Evans from Plaid Cymru, said that he was voting in favour of the application only because of a three-line whip on Plaid Cymru councillors. He added that he did not wish to be thrown out of the party. It is very odd that such a discussion should have been based on party whipping.
	The advice from the Countryside Council for Wales was very clear. It concluded that the development would be inappropriate because of the landscape issue. Although it does not have the power of decision on the matter, it is unfortunate that the National Assembly did not realise that it was desirable to make it clear that a public inquiry was required, which enabled the DTI to say that it had received no formal request for one. I believe that there should be a formal inquiry. It is likely that it will conclude that it would not be desirable to have such a development at Cefn Croes.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel for initiating this debate. Unlike many other speakers, I am a fan of renewable energy. I believe that there is a need for diversification to protect our long-term supply sources, and, indeed, the type of energy. Noble Lords may recall a Cabinet Office energy review document that was published this month. On reading the document, I took it to say that 70 per cent of our energy needs by the year 2020 would be supplied by gas. It seems to me that, by then, most of that gas will be imported from such politically unstable areas as Algeria, the Middle East and Russia. We need security of supply, as well as diversity. Therefore, I support the 10 per cent government target for renewables by the year 2010. In fact, I believe that the figure should be higher.
	Wind is one of the most well-developed renewable sources of energy. The costs of construction and of operation are stable, but, unlike the price of oil which fluctuated by more than three-times between 1998, 1999 and 2000, they are decreasing. I was interested in the assertion of my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel that wind energy does not reduce emissions because, he said, one always has to have a gas power station standing by. If a power station is standing by and not generating it is not emitting. That saves emissions.
	There are three relevant issues to this debate. Basically, they are noise, visual impact and location. As regards noise, I had the privilege of being a member of a Select Committee of this House which visited Denmark a year or two ago. We stood under one of the biggest wind generators built at that time. It was almost inaudible. The Danish Wind Industry Association said that being just six times the rotor diameter away—if it was is meters in diameter, that would be 25 meters away—it is no noisier than a normal living room with something like 45 dBA. I believe that modern generators are extremely quiet.
	We have heard a great deal in the debate about visual impact. It is very subjective. I personally believe that windmills look better than pylons, but both are unacceptable in certain locations. It is probable that the top of a mountain is one of them. There is also another aspect to building anything on top of a mountain or the South Downs. One needs access roads, which can be as wrecking to the environment as the windmills themselves.
	It is true that the more windy the location the more electricity is generated and the tops of hills are windy. The Danes told us that if the wind is too strong they have to stop the windmills because they become dangerous. Therefore, I am not convinced that the top of a Welsh mountain is necessarily a particularly attractive location. I certainly agree with my noble friend Lord Williams that what should apply at Cefn Croes should also apply to the South Downs and anywhere else. There are many locations which are suitable for wind generators such as offshore and flatter areas.
	It is also logical that wind should be generated as closely as possible to where it is needed. I am beginning to suspect that this matter is a re-run of what occurred in the last century when many Welsh valleys were flooded to provide water for England. Is this an idea in order to provide electricity for England by building windmills on the tops of Welsh mountains? I do not know. There are many locations in the Bristol Channel, the Thames Estuary and Merseyside which would be perfectly adequate and good for wind power to supply the big conurbations in the South, the Midlands and the North West.
	I am a little suspicious that such decisions by the Minister may have been influenced by how far it is from Westminster. I can understand why Wales wants to make its own decision about where wind farms should be located. One can also then comment on whether it wants to make its own decisions about where it obtains its energy from or whether it wants to have a free of supply of energy from everywhere else and not make any other decisions.
	I believe that there should be common standards. The idea of my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath of environmental impact assessments is very important. There should be common standards for planning locations. I do not see why we cannot move towards wind power in more suburban and urban areas, including London. Why not put some on the top of Canary Wharf and make it self-sufficient? Someone might complain that they did not look nice, but I cannot quite see why we cannot have a few of them around here.
	Let us set an example in the South East. We should have them on the South Downs, the Chilterns and in the Thames Estuary or wherever. Let the Government for once say, "Let's have more in England" and demonstrate that we in England can cope with them. Then let the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament themselves decide where they want them situated.

Lord Hooson: My Lords, I rise to speak very briefly in the gap. I entirely agree with what my noble friend Lord Carlile had to say. I am now in what the late and lamented Lord Elwyn-Jones used to call "the anecdotage". As I listened to the debate an anecdote came to my mind of an incident 40 years ago when I appeared as counsel on behalf of a group called Friends of Mwnt, who were objecting to a caravan site being set up in the only bay in Wales between the Lleyn peninsula and Pembrokeshire which did not have a caravan site. It was a beautiful little bay. There is an old church there.
	I was briefed by this group and was cross-examining the chairman of the local planning committee. He was a genial, honest man. I gave him rather a rough time and pointed out to him, "Look at all these bays. They all have caravan sites. Are you saying now that this beautiful little bay should or should not have a site?" He threw up his hands in despair and said, "Well, Mr Hooson, we know that all the owners of those bays have had their compensation. Mr Jones, who owns this one, is a very decent chap and we did not see why he should not have his". That is one of the great elements which has perhaps actuated the planning committee in coming to an economic conclusion on what is essentially a purely planning matter.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, those of us who know and love mid-Wales and almost all who have spoken in this debate are right to be deeply concerned about the ministerial decision to give the go-ahead to the proposed wind farm at Cefn Croes. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel, for concentrating our minds on that decision.
	This is the first monster-sized turbine project of over 50 megawatts to be authorised by the Minister for Energy in Wales without a public inquiry. As Simon Jenkins pointed out in The Times article on 15th February, Wales now has the largest concentration of onshore turbines in Europe. As if they were not big and intrusive enough already, they are getting bigger, both in capacity and turbine height.
	Almost all other schemes currently in the planning process involve larger turbines than any of the existing 14 wind power stations in Wales and so the Cefn Croes scheme will set a precedent for future mega-developments of this kind. We have already heard talk of a proposal by the Camddwr Trust for 165 wind turbines 400 feet high, straddling the heights above Strata Florida Abbey. Are environmental considerations now to be completely disregarded?
	How this decision was arrived at is also causing concern. First, there was Ceredigion County Council's decision in favour of the scheme by 19 votes to three, clean contrary to the advice of its officials and in the circumstances that have been well described. That brought the scheme straight to the Minister's desk under Sections 36 and 37 of the Electricity Act 1989. The powers in those sections are devolved in Scotland but not in Wales, so Wales is at the mercy of Whitehall!
	Secondly, there is what I can only call the curious role of the National Assembly, which has some responsibility, as has been said, for Forest Enterprise and the Pwllpeirian Experimental Farm which occupy much of the land where the turbines will be sited. Presumably, it is they who will be rewarded by the scheme's promoters rather than the poor farmers.
	For some curious reason the Assembly did not accept the conclusion of its statutory advisers, the Countryside Council for Wales, who stated explicitly that,
	"notwithstanding the contribution that the Cefn Croes development might make to the generation of renewable energy, it would be inappropriate because of its detrimental effect on the landscape".
	The Assembly did not press for a public inquiry although to be fair, its official letter to the DTI pointed out that it had had more than 200 letters requesting such an inquiry and that it was the accepted means of testing and collecting information,
	"where the issues involved more than local considerations"
	which was clearly the case on this occasion.
	The truth is that the thrust of thinking at the DTI was to consent to the scheme without a public inquiry. That becomes apparent in the reply sent to the chairman of the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales on 7th February this year. It is also one of the recurrent themes of the recently published Cabinet Office paper The Energy Review. Paragraph 8.38 of that document portrays the current attitude to planning. It states:
	"A persistent theme of the review has been the problems, either experienced or perceived, that energy projects have in gaining planning permission . . . Problems are often the result of the different concerns of potential developers and local residents. However, if the United Kingdom is to meet environmental, social and economic objectives, then a range of new supply-and-demand-side measures will have to gain planning permission".
	We should note that last phrase well.
	In short, there is a built-in presumption, if not an imperative, in favour of development projects that fit in with national energy policy objectives. There was no problem with Cefn Croes once planning permission had been given, and the Minister for Energy had no intention of creating one by succumbing to pressure for a public inquiry. Perhaps the distant involvement of Enron hastened his decision? I should like to know—as I am sure the House would—is it still involved?
	All this begs the question of the intrinsic worth of the Government's policy and targets on renewable energy. The current target is that 5 per cent of electricity supply should come from wind-powered turbines on land and off shore. Are higher targets to be set for 2020 and beyond? Land-based wind power output at present amounts to a minuscule 0.3 per cent in the United Kingdom, so there is a long way to go before the 5 per cent target is achieved.
	Indeed, the Council for the Preservation of Rural Wales estimates that some 3,000 large land turbines, 100 metres high, will be needed, more than 1,000 of them in Wales; and around 1,000 even larger turbines, 150 metres high, at sea—150 of them off the Welsh coast. I read a report of one such project today in the Liverpool Daily Post. It is preferable to a land-based wind farm because it is proposed to be five miles off shore, but it is an enormous project.
	So we are engaged in a programme of monstrous proportions to achieve this somewhat pitiful 5 per cent requirement. I believe, as do many others, it is an environmental catastrophe in the making.
	Why are we in this ridiculous situation of having to destroy our environmental heritage so dubiously and trivially to reduce our fossil fuel emissions? It is because, unlike the French who get 40 per cent of their power from nuclear sources, we back-tracked on our nuclear power policy and now face a diminishing nuclear contribution to our energy needs.
	I am glad to see that The Energy Review recommends that the options of new investment in nuclear power and clean coal should be kept open, and to read a press report that British Nuclear Fuels and British Energy are linking up to replace ageing reactors. I hope that these options will be examined sooner rather than later, before we have totally spoilt the wilds of Wales for a ha'penny worth of tar.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel secured the debate. I apologise for not being here for the first few minutes of his speech, but as he kindly sent me his speech I am aware of what he said.
	I am aware that the announcement in December by the Minister for Energy that DTI Ministers had agreed in principle a 60-megawatt wind farm at Cefn Croes in the Cambrian Mountains, subject to the planning conditions and planning obligation being resolved, has met with deep concern among some in Wales. These are extremely difficult issues where a balanced approach is needed to increase, on the one hand, renewable energy while, on the other, protecting the countryside.
	As part of their energy policy the Government have a very clear target of achieving 10 per cent renewables electricity by 2010. Of course, there are many people who think that that target is too low. This is an important step change in our future energy mix and will greatly enhance emission savings and add to the security and diversity of our energy supplies.
	However, as the PIU report makes clear, to reduce the amount of carbon emissions that we are talking about, and, indeed, to increase the amount of renewable energy we will need, we have to take action on many fronts. This includes both a massive amount of conservation and a vast amount of effort on renewables. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, that making use of methane gas from coal mines is a sensible move, but it would make a minuscule difference to the kind of targets we are talking about.
	I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Williams, that opposition to an energy source by any particular group is always, in my experience, accompanied by protestations that that group is in support of every other kind of renewable energy. So those who oppose biomass are always in support of wind turbines, and vice versa.
	We are not talking about producing insubstantial amounts of energy from Cefn Croes. It will supply energy to more than 40,000 homes, which is a considerable amount of energy. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about the seriousness of the situation in regard to renewables. It has been well rehearsed in many debates in the House. It is dangerously sentimental to argue for change in this important way to protect the environment, and then to object to everything which can bring it about. I want to make it clear that we are not set on delivering our target on renewables at the expense of all other considerations—the countryside, nature conservation and the views of local people.
	Developers have to work within the planning system and where decisions on large-scale developments fall to government Ministers, we shall operate within the due process. That is how the decision in principle on Cefn Croes was reached. Proposals for power stations of more than 50 megawatts are considered by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. The Secretary of State looks at each proposal on a case-by-case basis and makes a decision on the merits of each proposed development.
	In looking at the application, she takes into account the environmental impact. She considers the views of the local community—the local planning authority, individuals and local MPs. She considers the advice of statutory bodies, such as the Environment Agency, the relevant countryside and nature conservation bodies and heritage bodies. In the case of Wales, she considers the views of the National Assembly for Wales. She obviously considers the views of the developer and she considers the views of any other party which writes to her on the application.
	Should the local planning authority object to an application, the Secretary of State is obliged to arrange for a public inquiry to be held. Even if the local planning authority does not object, the Secretary of State has a discretionary power to hold a public inquiry, if it is appropriate to do so in the light of any other objections received or of any other material considerations particular to the case. I hope that your Lordships will see from this that it is a comprehensive process in which the local planning authority has a key role to play through its familiarity with the local environment and its ability to object and thereby force a public inquiry, but also a process in which the public get a chance to have their say.
	In this case, there is no doubt in my mind that the process was gone through properly. We considered the views of all concerned; there was no requirement for a mandatory public inquiry; and a judgment was reached that Ministers had sufficient information to reach a decision without needing to exercise the discretionary power to call a public inquiry. I hope that noble Lords will see from this that Ministers have indeed followed the statutory process before reaching a decision. It is difficult to see grounds now that would lead Ministers to reconsider their decision or to ask for a public inquiry.
	That brings me to the noble Lord's concern over the unblocking of 100 renewable projects. The Government are strongly committed to accelerating the uptake of renewables electricity in this country. We shall need to use a range of measures to achieve the target we have set of 10 per cent renewables electricity by 2010. Allowing NFFO supported projects to relocate to alternative sites for which planning permission has been given will certainly help us to move towards this target.
	I can assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford and the noble Lord, Lord Moran, that this in no way enables those projects to override planning permission or in any way to obtain preferential planning permission in a site to which they move. It merely says that the support for them is not tied to obtaining planning permission on a particular site. Each case will be examined in the usual way by the relevant planning authorities. A corresponding arrangement for Scotland is being prepared.
	The noble Lord, Lord Williams, referred to the DTI press notice stating that the development will result in savings of 150,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide. He argued that this was incorrect because the energy produced by Cefn Croes will go to meet increased demand.
	I do not find that a very convincing argument. The electricity generated by Cefn Croes would in all probability otherwise be generated by fossil fuels. That is the basis for the DTI's statement. It makes no sense to claim that electricity generated by Cefn Croes would go to meeting increments in demand, not existing demand. All electricity generated in substantial amounts simply goes into the Grid, whatever its source. It makes no sense to claim that the intermittent nature of windpower makes a difference. It is clear that we are dealing with a situation whereby the electricity goes into the Grid and is then dispersed; and we have no way of knowing whether it is going to replace electricity from fossil fuels or whether it is meeting extra demand. The correct question to ask is: does it provide energy that would otherwise have to be produced from fossil fuels?

Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, may I respectfully drag the noble Lord back to the subject of the debate; namely, the effect on the landscape at Cefn Croes? Will he please let us into the secret of how the Secretary of State evaluated the landscape in question and the reasons for overriding the representations of many that it should not be despoiled?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am coming to that question, but it is clearly important that the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Williams, should be dealt with; namely, that this development had no value in terms of energy.
	I am happy to come to the noble Lord's question. As I said, this has to be dealt with in terms of a balanced decision which takes account both of the landscape and of the considerations about producing renewable energy. In this case the county council agreed the planning application and the National Assembly for Wales, when offered the opportunity to comment on the decision, did not say that there should be a planning inquiry. It cannot, therefore, be said that the DTI rode roughshod over local views. If the alternative situation had applied—namely, if the planning officer had gone against the proposal and the county council had said that it did not want the project to go ahead—I cannot believe that anyone in this House would have said that we should have listened to the planning officer rather than to the elected body. As I said, the National Assembly for Wales was given the opportunity to comment on the matter and did not do so.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked whether Brian Wilson had visited Cefn Croes. The answer is no. However, he was fully aware of the issues of visual impact, nature conservation and protection of the countryside raised by the application. He was aware also, from photo-montages, of the nature of the landscape. In arriving at a judgment, he weighed all these considerations seriously against all the other relevant considerations.
	I give the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, an assurance that a full environmental statement is required for all the windfarm applications that come to the DTI. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, that there is a great deal of misinformation about Enron's involvement in the project. It is a financial backer, and there has been some misunderstanding about the consequences of that. I want to make it clear that what matters is not the name of a particular company but that the necessary funding is available to undertake the planning obligation, such as the land management scheme decommissioning costs. Obviously, that will not be finally agreed until all parts of it are in place.
	In conclusion, I hope that I have provided the noble Lord with the comfort that in reaching this decision proper weight was given to the Welsh viewpoint. Wherever such decisions are taken, a consistent and balanced view needs to be reached that takes full account of the concerns of local people. I believe that in this case that was done.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may press him further on one point. He has spoken as though the decision was made in Wales clearly, consciously, with everyone involved being aware of their rights and understanding the matter from beginning to end. I submit that in this case—because it was the first such case to be determined by the DTI—there was extraordinary confusion. I do not believe that the Minister this evening or the Minister in another place has recognised the confusion. As I said, the Countryside Council for Wales did not ask for an inquiry because it was advised that it could only advise; and the National Assembly for Wales did not ask for an inquiry, claiming that it could not do so if the Countryside Council for Wales had not done so. I do not believe that the Minister has answered the point about the confusion and taken serious account of the particular circumstances of this case.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, clearly one can always find different views on these matters. However, it does not seem to me that in this case there was any confusion about the decision of the county council on this matter. It took a clear decision. Against that, to say that it made it on the basis that it did not really understand the situation is not a very democratic approach. It was for the county council to make the decision. It made it. We had to counterbalance that in our decision, as we did the approach of the National Assembly for Wales.

Greenham and Crookham Commons Bill

Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
	House adjourned at thirteen minutes before eight o'clock.